TikTok goes dark in the US | Hacker News Reader

TikTok goes dark in the US

techcrunch.com

1,180 pointsmfiguiere2,458 comments

Next thread in the sequence:

TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759336 - Jan 2025 (22 comments)

The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.

I'm surprised no one replied to your post but maybe that's because it shuts down most arguments. Most, if not all, states in a nation-state world have laws that allow them to ban the imports of foreign goods. Maybe at some point we'll get a global government to resolve inter-national conflict but until then, we have nation-states dividing humanity to protect "their" humans.

Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age.

What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.

Very possible. Most import tariffs and bans are to protect national industry. Still a "our humans are more important than yours" division of the world.

But yes, countries who impose import restrictions often don't want others to impose them.

Sure, but just because its law doesnt mean its just. If you are just talking about "the law" you are talking about something very different than everyone else. Even if its the law, its obviously a violation of the intent behind free speech to limit speech only to those who the government can intimidate. If the only way to have free speech is to be within arms reach of the government's threats you arent really a bastion of free speech, you just practice speech within the bounds of what the government will allow. And as we have recently seen, that can change dramatically depending on who is paying.

On the same logic, youtube, facebook, google, etc. should not be owned by the parent company in other countries than the US because of the influence they have on ppls opinions (on policital elections and whatnot)

You assume there is a symmetrical relationship between the US and other nations here. There is not, hasn't been since WW2.

Especially since those ironically are among the long list of American websites banned in China for decades...

Amd that will be better. No massive global corporation.

They definitely should do that if they believe that these applications are controlled by US government.

AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.

> They definitely should do that if they believe that these applications are controlled by US government.

The goal of government entities in these types of spots is to have de facto control and/or influence without appearing to have it.

> AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.

Ummmm…

Maybe we should go farther. Should Samsung divest because so many Americans have a Samsung Galaxy?

Who knows what could be on those chips.

Pretty sure South Korea is considered an ally. That's how political relationships work.

So, I guess China had it right with its great firewall then, right? I mean you have to protect your national interest against foreign corporations. I didn't know Americans would agree with CCP policies like this.

From the perspective of the Chinese government, yes.

I would say America has as much right to be upset at China blocking American websites within its borders, as China has to be upset at the US blocking Tiktok within its borders.

Is China upset about this? This just seems to be a huge American self-own (pun intended).

I don't see the downside to Americans as a result of this. Meanwhile, China lost a valuable propaganda tool.

Or, would have. It's all a moot point now that the appeal to Trump's ego worked.

You sound like someone who doesn't use TikTok and therefore isn't affected by this anyway. So your opinion doesn't matter

Extrapolating your logic, I am not currently in a war-zone therefore my opinions on war don't matter. I'm not a politician so I shouldn't have political opinions.

The downside is mostly in terms of PR. But I agree that Americans and American media would still probably call any foreign ban on Facebook or youtube "censorship". Or would say that Chinese style bans on foreign social media is wrong - except when they do it. So I guess I agree, there's no big downside for Americans.

They are just shifting to one propaganda tool (tiktok) to another (fb). For the american citizen nothing changes.

the crazy thing is the US isn't even limiting all foreign ownership with this act. all it says is that four adversary countries can't own it -- china, NK, Russia, Iran.

TikTok and the Scope of the Communications Act of 1934 Are Different The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern digital economy.

Foreign Ownership Does Not Equate to a National Security Threat There is no publicly available evidence proving that TikTok has provided U.S. user data to a foreign government. TikTok has already implemented localization measures for data storage and operations (e.g., the "Texas Project"). In contrast, many U.S. tech companies (e.g., Facebook, Google) have faced scrutiny over data privacy issues but have not been restricted due to foreign ownership. Restricting TikTok solely based on "foreign ownership" lacks factual support.

Economic Impact: TikTok Is a Lifeline for Millions TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S. According to 2023 data, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. economy and supported at least 300,000 jobs. Restricting TikTok would directly threaten the livelihoods of these individuals, causing significant harm to social stability and economic vitality.

A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban Rather than imposing a blanket restriction on TikTok, it would be more effective to strengthen data privacy protections through legislation, ensuring that all social media platforms (whether foreign or domestic) adhere to the same security standards. For example, TikTok could be required to further localize data storage and undergo independent audits. This approach would safeguard national security while avoiding unnecessary harm to users and creators.

>The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern digital economy.

I don't understand your point. Yes, TikTok and traditional media are different. But there are similarities. And you haven't pointed out any difference between them that would make a law restricting traditional media reasonable but a law restricting TikTok unreasonable.

>A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban

Why capitalize every letter of the sentence? This feels like it was generated by an LLM.

> TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S.

I very much doubt that 5 million people earn significant money from tik tok

One would think that should apply to essential services like power, but here in the UK our largest energy distribution network is owned by France.

The Communications Act of 1934 applies primarily to broadcast media, and many of the restrictions that it put in place were specifically justified by the inherent scarcity of broadcast spectrum, where the rationale that one party can dominate the airwaves and prevent others from rebutting them does have some relevance.

Restrictions that would be clearly invalid as applied to other forms of media were therefore allowed -- you need an FCC license to operate a radio station, but any proposal to require a federal license to operate a printing press, for example, would be extremely unconstitutional.

Once the licencing regime was in place for broadcast media, they were able to work other concerns into the criteria for issuing licenses. But the argument you seem to be making here -- that it's appropriate to regulate public communications in order to control, as an end in itself, who is allowed to have "influence" on public opinion -- flies in the face of the first amendment, and is entirely outside the legitimate role of the federal government.

The internet does not have the scarcity of communication channels that broadcast media does -- apps and websites are more like printing presses than radio stations.

A point I think most people don’t understand is that the government interest in TikTok has little to do with exploiting user data per se, a lot of other companies do that. The issue is that TikTok is somewhat unique in being aggressively weaponized in currently very active “grey zone” conflicts.

This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters. Geopolitic strategies are increasingly executed as grey zone warfare, and some hybrid warfare, because the costs and risks of traditional overt warfare have become unacceptably high.

>but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters.

Education?

College degree here, I have no idea what it actually means.

"Grey zone conflict" sounds a lot like our powers are upset they don't have the level of control over information that the adversary has. They want to be the ones to censor, suppress, and promote, rather than another country. The goal isn't more open access to information.

Whether they want or not, they cannot. The democratic system, even deficient as one in US, still does its job and works against blatant information suppression.

Huh?

You are not wrong per se

> This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters

Looks like you're just confirming what OP said

Might as well look up the definition of "5th column"

“More open access to information” is not the adversary’s goal, either. Is that goal served by preserving the adversary’s control over the information environment?

I think it's more the other way round, that they don't want others to have the same powers they do?

If you control the "last mile" infrastructure, you have a pretty good idea what's going on. If you control the mobile network, you can track everyone, and flash their baseband processor if you like.

(see also: concerns about Huawei equipment in our internet infrastructure)

The documents that Snowden released confirmed that this kind of thing was going on. To be honest, I don't think that really surprised anyone in the security community.

We just don't want China to have the same power to monitor our citizens as we have ourselves.

> and flash their baseband processor if you like

Could you please give some source on that info?

All the real documentation for this is likely to be classified, but here's

a backdoor: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/replicant-developers-fin...

a patent for doing it in "civilian" applications: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013114317A1/en

sure, the NSA will respect that

Well damn. I had a vague feeling that something like that was possible, but this is eye opening, thank you.

In the US we allow significantly more spying on foreigners than US citizens. That’s not as controversial as domestic spying.

Look at the backlash against the US government trying to clamp down on Covid misinformation with a national emergency declaration [1]. There’s exactly zero reason to expect the CCP has an incentive to behave differently, especially when there’s effectively no way for companies to push back in China.

And no that doesn’t excuse the nonsense some US administrations get up to. Like undermining the effectiveness of the Chinese covid vaccine [2].

There is already evidence of pressure being applied to ByteDance by the CCP for data on Hong Kong citizens [3].

So it would be silly to think that: 1) data for different TikTok users is more or less difficult for the CCP to access based on their specific locations (technically or practically) And 2) the CCP has more respect for foreigners than Western governments do.

———

1 - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca...

2 - https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...

3 - https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...

You make it sound like that's generally a negative thing, implying that the information being promoted by other countries is made equal and has some implicit right to be spread. But it's not, it's geopolitic information warfare.

It is?

The problem has no easy solution.

At the end of the day, either users are really in control for what they can or they cannot talk about or it's censored one way or another and thus not free.

Information war is complex and if we don't allow our foes to express their povs then all we're left is our own manipulated media. If we do allow it we might face a spread of a different kind of information.

I wish this was all solved by allowing everybody to spread whatever information and educating citizens since young age about raising a lot of doubt about anything they hear/see in the news/socials.

But again this is also complicated on a social media level especially with those auto feeder algorithms that will either push you controversial content because it makes views or just because you stumbled on few videos on the topic so it's gonna push you even further in the hole.

In any case there's no simple solution.

The issue with China is that our own information and misinformation cannot reach them either.

We allowed Russian state media for long on our platforms because they allowed our on theirs too. Reddit or YouTube or X were never banned there. But again 90% of Russians get informed by tv, and the minority that doesn't gets it on VK or other Russian social media.

Users aren't in control. Because you can post whatever you want, but the platform decides if it gets seen or not. This is valid for any social media.

Is it freedom of speech if there is no freedom of hearing?

So we get down to actual situation - TikTok is way too popular and not under reach nor control.

The hell will sooner freeze that me as an European will believe US government is not weaponizing data of all US companies it can get it hands on, and well, it can get hands on all data. That's decade old story at best.

For an European, this is really funny, fight for who can control general population more. Don't get me wrong, I consider all social networks a brain and societal cancer, but to claim one is weaponized and the other is not, pinky promise... Snowden, NSA, secret courts and rulings that can't be even made public, recording basically whole internet traffic for further analysis including this comment (maybe apart from youtube traffic). Discussion who is doing worse is then just an academic one, lets make an Excel spreadsheet and compare numbers.

I'm sure the US government is also weaponizing information. But the decision to ban TikTok while controlled by the CPP isn't done on moral grounds. It's based on pragmatism.

As a european, talking to any american, we notice you guys have levels of propaganda that are way way higher than what we get. And we do get propaganda.

The notion that without tiktok you'll now get anything "true" is laughable.

I think what you are saying could possibly be true, but is probably hard to quantify. Anecdotally, I have a friend living in the EU that claims the opposite of what you are, but I have no plans on taking a stance until I see some kind of proof.

Personally, I'm not too concerned with the propaganda factor, but of course I'm still affected whether I want to or not. I just don't feel it's a strong point.

What is really concerning though is the other points that a lot of commenters fail to bring up:

#1 - The ability for a foreign nation to streamline targeting an American with real time location data is one - for example, a high ranking official has the app or has an aide that uses the app. The high ranking official can then be targeted.

#2 - Another really good one is that China subsidizes TikTok content creators. This is a form of economic warfare against Americans and also a way to generate more growth and users, which ultimately strengthens the capabilities of #1.

There are more of course, but I have no intention on writing a dissertation. My point is that propaganda shouldn't be worried about as much as the risk to national security.

Lastly, I say all this having a great respect for people of China. They feel like one of the countries in the world that takes the "knowledge is power" saying seriously, rather than just using it as a punch line.

It has absolutely made things more difficult not having distinct spheres of information with well defined boundaries. It's genuinely made things much more difficult to plan about. The global Internet absolutely has made a lot of people upset for a lot of reasons that make intuitive sense.

That's what growing conservative "anti globalist" movements backed by national security elements are really about. Not ultimately immigration or racism or tax cuts (that's how you get the tubes on board), but about how the inability to keep civilians out of information conflicts has made running countries incredibly difficult.

This is one area where China absolutely has the right approach and we need to wake up about what it means in the public rather than complain that we can't scroll silly waste of time videos all the time. The US public is incredibly uneducated about this concept and why it poses a threat, so the discussion needs to be had.

I think we should be far more critical of American internet companies as well and quite a few of them should probably be banned because they are creating the same sort of problem w.r.t how we can practically organize a functioning society. That's the unfortunate thing, is a bunch of libertarians in silicon valley a while back decided to invent a business model that could cause a global war.

Why drop bombs on your adversary when you can use social media influence to achieve the same ends of reducing productivity? This is far cheaper and gives you plausible deniability.

This misunderstands the topic, it literally has nothing to do with information access.

The Chinese government invested a lot for decades in R&D around population-scale behavioral manipulation, including running a lot of experiments on their own population. It was an impressive research effort; other countries invest in this too but the Chinese commitment to mastery of it was next level. Not an issue.

These capabilities and techniques can make populations wired into it dance like predictable puppets in aggregate but they don’t work that effectively over generic undifferentiated communication channels because humans are too chaotic. It requires tight real-time feedback, control, and instrumentation of the information channels with sufficient critical mass population-wise to matter. Those kinds of tight feedback and control loops under direct control of government systems for constructive manipulation aren’t really a thing at most social media companies. You can spam propaganda but that is qualitatively inferior.

Divestiture of TikTok removes the access and control the Chinese government needs to effect outcomes with TikTok beyond typical propaganda and influence operations.

Most countries desire this capability but the technical implementation and requirement of sufficiently tight control of the channel has been a formidable barrier. China outright banned any vehicle that had the potential to allow foreign governments to do the same in their own country.

All of this has been known and discussed in national security settings for decades. The difficulty of implementation in the real world made it mostly a hypothetical risk at any non-trivial scale until TikTok.

The most insidious aspect is that sophisticated operational analytics has made it such that the manipulation may seem completely unrelated to the desired population-scale effect, it is not propaganda in a conventional sense. Done well, the individual never perceives it but the aggregate effect reliably emerges. The extent to which humans can be analytically manipulated in very indirect ways at scale is both fascinating and scary.

(Many years ago I used to work on problems related to population-scale operational behavioral analysis. China was on the cutting edge of this research even back then. None of the experimental theory is new, but apparently the tech finally caught up.)

Do you have reading material you can recommend on this for someone that wants to learn enough to get an informed opinion on this?

>The issue is that TikTok is somewhat unique in being aggressively weaponized in currently very active “grey zone” conflicts.

That has been happening since time immemorial.

What is actually the issue is that for the first time ever in the post-WW2 Pax Americana era, media is being weaponized by a powerful non-American state (China).

America does through Facebook, Mysterious Twitter X, Reddit, CNN, Fox News, PBS, et al. what China does through TikTok. If anything, other countries should also seriously consider banning foreign media and realize insofar as future geopolitics that Pax Americana is ending.

Didn't the USSR have a pretty good "foreign relations" propaganda team?

Has.

According to wikipedia, China is blocking most of the sites you mentioned. I was surprised to see that Russia does not.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_i...

The USSR had significant reach back at the time, and a quite ideological one. The last 25 years allowed the US to relax significantly.

The editorial lines of Fox News are completely different to CNN and PBS. Different subreddits are completely different. The idea that they're all part of some conspiracy run by the US government is very strange.

The goal is to make everyone wear American blue jeans and listen to American pop music, the details are irrelevant.

TikTok serves to make everyone wear Chinese blue jeans and listen to Chinese pop music, and America does not like that.

Putting it another way: America can dish it out but they can't take it.

It’s only about blue jeans? It’s not about pissing Americans off so they are less productive and overall are less able to defend against additional attacks?

China is going for a Culture Victory after watching America land Culture Victory after Victory for the past better part of a century. America does not appreciate the challenge, not the least because it can't compete anymore.

Also, seeing as you took "blue jeans" quite literally I am going to assume you never played Civilization. For being a child-oriented game filled with memes it's actually very insightful about human psychology, I recommend playing it.

I’ve probably played thousands of hours of Civ2. Not so much the newer ones. All I’ve learned so Gandhi is a genocidal maniac with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

You mean, Romania?

That one appears to be an own-goal by an opposing party: https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-...

Interesting, so that doesn't have to be CCP to wield influence over TikTok, anyone can pay to a marketing firm to promote whatever they want.

You mention “grey zone conflicts” then opine that people don’t know what that is…then don’t actually explain what it is!

This is the very top of the "Description" section of the Wikipedia page for "Grey-zone (international relations)"[0]:

> Use of the term grey-zone is widespread in national security circles, but there is no universal agreement on the definition of grey-zone, or even whether it is a useful term, with views about the term ranging from "faddish" or "vague", to "useful" or "brilliant"

It goes on to say:

> Grey zone warfare generally means a middle, unclear space that exists between direct conflict and peace in international relations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...

So it's pretty much a cold war, but we don't want to say that?

I guess "The Cold War" is very specific to a historical period, and the term "grey zone conflict" is a generalization of what went on there. Also the Cold War involved lots of proxy wars, not thing "grey zone conflict" necessarily does.

Also, I'm starting to feel like the vagueness of "are we at war or not?" is an intentional feature that gives people in power leverage to gaslight the public. That applies to both cold war and grey zone conflict.

Beijing understands very well how TikTok can be used. It’s been banned in Hong Kong since the 2019 protests.

I don't understand your comment. Beijing controls TikTok and understands how it can be used, yet bans it in Hong Kong to prevent it from being used to fuel the independence movement. Aren't those statements contradictory?

Those who control TikTok certainly have more power than the users.

Because during the Cold war information was able to be more efficiently split up between different mutually independent spheres. Now it's more of a free for all because of global Internet access. So yes, you could call it a "cold war", but it's really a more generalized version of that concept.

OP maligns people for not knowing what it means, but it seems like it’s a nebulous term with no concrete meaning.

Saying people don’t know something is not maligning. Most people don’t know most things.

"You don't know this thing that nobody knows either" is not very informative. Though to be fair "grey-zone" is a bit like obscenity: you know it when you see it.

I don't think obscenity has any sort of consensus, it's based on arbitrary morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

The conflict in Palestine was one (1).

The ADL head (Greenblatt) noted they had a major issue with young people seeing footage from the front lines negatively impacting perception of Israel, this is in a leaked voice memo from early 2024. Ban legislation followed within a month.

(1) https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1852851603365036222

https://x.com/PatriotSt0rm17/status/1878777137479712889

https://x.com/infolibnews/status/1878706591626924522

Chase Hughes:

"Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM

But there is no big conspiracy. Just a lot or small ones.

They can’t manufacture consent anymore regarding false flag wars that only benefit large war profiteering corporations.

the problem this law solves is that in tiktok's case the "they" who has the power to manufacture consent is the PRC

They don't need to, people share and watch the content voluntarily because it has novel value.

"Why wasn't I told this before?" Is a common sentiment in those videos.

often the reason is because it wasn’t true or they were told and weren’t listening!

what “false flag” war has the US engaged in? would love a single legit example of a false flag, closest i can think of is gulf of tonkin which was quite some time ago and not actually a false flag.

i hate that nationalism is becoming another hyper-polarized topic - now we get people who are ridiculously jingoistic/anti-cosmopolitan and other people who reject fully the notion that a government’s first responsibility is to its own citizens. both are radical views that are no way to govern a well-functioning republic.

Remember when we overthrew Saddam’s government because Iraq had WMDs?

that’s not what a false flag is unless you’re saying the US secretly gassed the Kurds and blamed it on Iraq

Well they didn’t don Iraqi uniforms and take photos smiling by vx agent drums or anything I guess. But they alleged as much and got the desired response as if they did. By definition of a false flag operation, you wouldn’t expect to hear of many historical cases. But one wonders cases such as the CIA training Taliban to fight the soviet union. Was this considered a false flag? Training and arming troops and sending them to fight without your flag on their sleeve? Does it matter if they went through boot camp on parris island or in a valley in Afghanistan for this definition? Do we care more about semantical correctness here or the outcomes?

yes i think the taliban in the 90s could be a false flag, although it wasn’t used in a way to justify US intervention

TikTok is somewhat unique in presenting a real, non-us-based competitor to FB/Instagram. A bit of lobbying to block your competitor is a deft move on Mark’s part

Also a competitor to Google and X.

The ban on TikTok has been in the works since Trump 1.0, way before Musk destroyed Twitter

This. I suggest to read Unrestricted Warfare to understand more on how TikTok (or FB, X, Instagram and such) can be used as tools in modern conflict.

Brexit and Trump #1 would've not happened without the likes of Cambridge analytica targeting undecided voters with precision.

Social media manipulation has already been effective.

These arguments become so vague to me that it just feels like an excuse for governments to do whatever they want.

Calling it "Grey zone conflict" feels like the "Deep state" shenanigans... It's primarily marketing to achieve your goal.

We've seen the invasion of Iraq; that was all based on lies. We got ISIS as a result... "National security circles" look for evidence so it fits their narrative. Like watching FoxNews. It's a very narrowminded funnel of carefully picked pieces of evidence. They are not truth seekers that aim to provide a holistic view of the situation. No, they are scared aged men who love to control the narrative and see danger in everything in the hope to get more funding for their next projects.

Btw; banning TikTok is a good thing, but for other reasons entirely.

Is there solid evidence about that?

The only study I've seen said that TikTok wasn't any more biased than other social medias.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tiktoks-content-political-subje...

That's not a scientific study but a report from a no profit and the method and data has not been reviewed.

It's not like those hashtags were even banned, so what's the point here?

It's also likely that demographics between the apps are different.

belief laundering, as if “network contagion research institute” is some long-standing research org and not basically an extension of the state like the “Atlantic Council”

anyone with half a statistics brain can see the problems in this analysis

Other ways [0] to think about "grey zone" conflict:

  cold-war (not an obsolete term)

  ambient non-linear conflict

  cyberwar

  business

[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/after-war/

The "aggressively weaponized in currently very active grey zone conflicts" sounds very very scary! Do you actually mean that young Americans are using it to teach each other about the US-enabled Israeli occupation of Palestine?

A guy in Romania nobody knew existed almost became a president thanks to TikTok [0] last December. Almost every right-wing party in Europe has a huge presence in TikTok, from the Balkans to Western Europe. I guess that’s what they mean.

I’m sorry, but not everything on this world is Israel/Palestine.

0 - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2v13nz202o.amp

Do you have any evidence supporting anything you claimed as a matter of fact? "grey zone conflicts", "aggressively weaponized", "national security circles" are just scary/serious sounding phrases that sound a lot more legitimate than I suspect they actually are.

AOC published a video talking about how she (and some other representatives) believed that the arguments that were presented to them were just as vague, nonspecific and theoretical as these online arguments I keep reading.

Grey Zone is a pretty well documented concept in geopolitics, it's a fascinating read if you're interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...

Gray zone conflicts: Evidence shows that China, Russia, and other foreign governments are actively using social media to manipulate and influence Americans through covert and deceptive tactics.

“Aggressively weaponized”: These conflicts rely on information as a primary weapon because it is more cost-effective and impactful than traditional warfare.

“National security circles”: This term commonly refers to the U.S. security establishment, including its agencies and defense systems.

Well, you have the recent Romanian election.

Pro-Russian, right-wing candidate (Calin Georgescu) with zero funding becomes leading candidate overnight. Turns out there's coordinate campaigns to push him on social media channels, like TikTok, where tens of thousands of accounts were opened a couple of weeks prior to polls opening. All pushing Calin.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2v13nz202o

So what? People freely chose to vote for Calin. He won. Why does it matter how these voters came to their decisions?

Deep down, the sorts of people who'd ban TikTok and overturn the Romanian election are those who believe they, not the people collectively, get to weigh the merit of ideas. They see democracy as a rubber stamp for elite consensus. If the rubber stamp malfunctions, it's time to fix it. This attitude is a betrayal of centuries of liberal values that made this country and the west generally what it is today.

It's a national risk, simple as that.

whenever the words ''national security'' appear in a paragraph, what follows next is usually nonsense or propaganda.

There's an interesting cognitive bias in the western media that tends to define freedom of the press (and freedom of expression) as exactly what is perceived as freedom in this side of the iron curtain.

Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index

Those words have different meaning:

1. Libgen domains are "seized" - only the domains got seized, the website is still operational.

2. tiktok "goes dark", yes because it was an action of tiktok to go dark with the hope that they will be operational next week. Nobody banned them and even Biden said he would not enforce it so they could have simply do nothing and wait for the next week.

3. "censor" porn or news outlets, I think thats common usage.

I agree with your linguistic point and the interaction of bias and ideology.

It's probably worth adding, though, that Libgen, TikTok, Porn and News Outlets would all be censored/banned/deliberately-excluded-from-culture-by-people-with-legitimate-power for different reasons.

I think TikTok and News Outlets would be the most closely aligned in this sense.

Censoring is different to banning though. Banning in this case is the correct word to use, censoring isn’t. You can censor things on a platform, you can’t censor a platform entirely - that is a ban.

...and yet when discussing ways to circumvent the Great Firewall of China, the term used is "Chinese censorship", never "Chinese bans".

This sounds like one of those irregular verb conjugations English is so full of: I ban; you go dark; he/she/it censors.

GFoC specifically filters not only sites (banning) but specific topics, keywords, discussions, and participants (censorship).

The censors in this case are Apple and Google, acting at the behest of the US Government. This news isn't about Tiktok censoring, rather about it being censored. Apple and Google are the platforms/publishers.

(There are also a whole host of other service providers that might be put into the position of being censors if Tiktok were to ignore the law and continue working for sidedloaded apps).

> freedom of the press

In many European countries this still includes regulations for publishers - while social media are somehow excluded from these regulations (and that explains why society is in state that is now when lies are not confronted but amplified).

As long as we're not discussing ways to circumvent the American firewall, since there isn't one, we can still say that one country tries but sometimes fails to live up to a free speech ideal perfectly -making exceptions for national security- and the other is blatant authoritarian.

"Sometimes" fails. If sometimes is every day.

Semantics aside, there's an objective list of who bans or censors more, and it's not even close. Not by an order of magnitude. Source: the great firewall's existence.

This is interesting. I agree, to some extent, but there's nuance in what do you include in the objectification of the concept. The usual argument, as I perceive it, is that we can be objective if we just quantify protocol interference, or DPI, or bogus DNS resolution.

But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.

If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.

Just a hypothesis: the fact that there's no need for an American firewall might be a consequence of the information controls being enacted at the level of platform moderation, or DNS resolution.

(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).

The mistake is in thinking that there is no need for an American (or Canadian, or EU) firewall. The reality is that either due to corruption or naivety, western countries let foreign information attacks and foreign propaganda spreads completely unchecked.

One could argue in the US that this was very useful to the new regime gaining popularity.

Yes. I was recently in Indonesia and shocked at how many high-profile sites are blocked at the DNS-level there, e.g. Reddit.

Is Reddit a great place? Eh. Is it critical to daily life in Indonesia? Of course not. But what I witnessed was censorship, full-stop.

I understand that the U.S. is not blocking TikTok at the DNS level. And that there are valid concerns over sharing user data and government influence over TikTok. But in my view, this is still censorship. Instead of allowing individuals decide whether or not to use TikTok, my government decided to ban it.

The whole argument over selling TikTok to a U.S.-based company is bullshit, imo. What kind of precedent is that? I use online services from all over the world, and in doing so decide to allow my usage to fall (to some extent) under the jurisdiction of that country.

This morning I felt the urge to download TikTok for the first time. I did, but I didn't bother creating an account.

There is a passage in the book Life of Pi, where Pi's family is gathered and ready to leave India for Canada. And his mother does something out of the ordinary:

> The day before our departure she pointed at a cigarette wallah and earnestly asked, "Should we get a pack or two?"

> Father replied, "They have tobacco in Canada. And why do you want to buy cigarettes? We don't smoke."

> Yes, they have tobacco in Canada-but do they have Gold Flake cigarettes? Do they have Arun ice cream? Are the bicycles Heroes? Are the televisions Onidas? Are the cars Ambassadors? Are the bookshops Higginbothams'? Such, I suspect, were the questions that swirled in Mother's mind as she contemplated buying cigarettes.

Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it. Will I use it if it is reinstated? Probably not. But I downloaded it anyway the same way Mrs Gita Patel wanted to buy cigarettes. It wasn’t about need or use. It was about the loss.

I would stand behind a tiktok ban if it was for the right reasons. But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.

Make no mistake - it conforms to manufactured consent.

The only difference is the manufacturer. But this is an important difference.

I would like to understand your position. China doesn't allow US apps. If Chinese apps are allowed, then China has a big advantage over USA.

Do you understand what kind of information can be derived from 150 million smart phones?

One is a "bastion of democracy", and another is the "center of human rights violation".

Would you not expect the rules to be different?

If it's only about reciprocity and global hegemony, well then...

Are you saying the United States is a bastion of democracy? It's not even classified as a full democracy. The list of full democracies are Canada, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mauritius.

United States is classified as a flawed democracy. Partly because sweeping decisions like this one are made by Supreme Court Justices who nobody voted for and who hold their position for life.

Or maybe that's what you meant and you were being sarcastic with the quotation marks around "bastion of democracy"?

In almost every country, the President or the Parliament selects Supreme Court Justices. In some countries, the President picks x, and the Parliament picks y. They don't have terms. Direct democracy does not make sense when selecting justices.

I am not making a statement, mostly portraying the official stance from the USA government that has just had their decision to ban TikTok come into effect.

As in, due to their official stance, we should not expect reciprocity at all.

But you did pique my curiosity, where did you get that list of "full democracies"?

Their source is the “The Economist Democracy Index” [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

Canada has a king.

So?

A number of democratic countries have residual symbolic figureheads.

In Canada all laws the legislature passes have to be approved by the monarch or the monarch's representative.

In Canada the monarch is the judicial branch. Ministers are appointed and dismissed by the monarch. Parliament can be adjourned by the monarch.

Again, so?

When was they last time these things weren't rubber stamped?

What do you suppose would happen should the symbolic monarch not rubber stamp procedure?

Why is it that Canada, et al are regarded in the world as "full democracies" whereas the US is ramked a bit lower as a "flawed democracy"?

( See: peer comment with wikipedia link to democratic rankings )

Said 'bastion of democracy' is a flawd democracy [1] who voted in a president who allegedly (facepalm) initiated a coup and got away with it. Also, a convicted criminal.

You could say it is a bastion of liberty but I'm from Europe and women here have reasonable abortion and sexuality rights.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Inde...

Now do China.

Heh, agreed. But the derailing of USA is extremely worrying to me (the trend is downward), whereas with China it is a given I accepted.

Bytedance chose this by not doing as requested.

I wouldn't refer to USA as very democratic or China as a center of human rights violation.

If there is no blanket ban, there would have to be many laws, rules, regulations and restrictions prohibiting the software from government buildings, etc.

In addition to the data points: contacts, location, audio, video, etc, malicious actors can learn a lot through deduction. That's before any sort of manipulation.

It may be a "bastion of democracy" but that says nothing about how it interferes with other countries. Democracy is only for citizens anyway.

Is this supposed to be China only or should the rest of the world also be suspicious and ban e.g. Meta services especially since they don't have any competing service that is popular in the US?

I presume meta is banned in China.

Oh but we are allies! The USA will never ever use the information gathered on allies for their own profit!

Also Twitter (Trump/Musk) would never push for regime changes in Europe.

(For anyone out of the loop, see https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-contr...)

Stop. This is stupid. People are allowed to have opinions on politics in other countries. Every other country in the world sure as hell isn’t shy about opining on US elections. Then you want to act all indignant if the US opines on your elections? Fuck off.

I was talking about what agendas the powers that control the TikTok/Twitter/Meta might have, not (only) protesting the opinion.

And in this case they are known to be exceptionally ruthless and part of Trump's administration.

The thing is that Elon Musk is not just some guy with an opinion. He's some guy who has an opinion and owns a major social media platform where he tweaks the algorithm to serve his own purposes, similar to what TikTok is being accused of.

Yeah, and a lot of people opining on US elections had media platforms of their own, or were heads of state or otherwise influential.

Too bad. Sucks that you got beat at your own game.

Donald Trump also created his own media platform. It's a pillar of the cult. Without them, they can't keep people fearful and misinformed.

“Everyone who has a media platform does it to keep people fearful and misinformed”. What does this tell you about previous media platforms?

In democracies the power of government and media are supposed to be different branches of the system. When this is violated it's considered a threat to democracy. Like in Italy Berlusconi's media empire, etc.

lmao so the past 8 years where the media was a propaganda org for the DNC was what exactly?

This is an odd statement. GOP was in power from 2016-2020. People confuse entertainment and social media with news sources. Nearly anyone can pay to advertise with traditional or social media.

I think you're trying to describe Twitter and the other "conservative" media sources? These are for entertainment, but traditionally would advertise whoever paid them. Now the companies have been purchased or created to spread misinformation.

I don't think that's true. For instance, Meta will spread whatever information it's legally allowed to if you pay them.

> Meta services especially since they don't have any competing service that is popular in the US

Meta won't tinker with the algorithm to push propaganda. TikTok will.

Excuse me, what? They do it all the time. Vaccines and Israel's genocide are just the tip of the iceberg of the propaganda machine broadcast through Meta's services. Make no mistake, this is not about China.

TikTok had a huge negative impact on special interest groups that want to continue to allow the holocaust of our days to continue happening and the genocidal state to continue to behave with impunity.

The U.S. is already infiltrated by people working for foreign interests. The thing is, it's not infiltrated by China's or Russia's operatives.

Non allied nations should absolutely ban US apps. Additionally, all government devices should have strict security features. It would be wise to also protect certain places from all electronic monitoring.

>If Chinese apps are allowed, then China has a big advantage over USA

Historically speaking the biggest threat by far to the lives and livelihood of US citizens is the US government and corporate elite. Giving them more power to control what information the population can access is much more dangerous to the average American than giving the Chinese government some data.

There is a statement from India’s information technology ministry, after 20 Indian soldiers died during border skirmish with China. When India banned TikTok in 2020 [0]

> Chinese mobile apps were stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data.

> The compilation of such data, and its mining and profiling by elements hostile to India is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures

[0] https://apnews.com/article/bd02ecd62ff9da6b1301868f0308e297

India is also an authoritarian government, is that something to celebrate? Also it is hilarious that they complain about TikTok but when you live in India, you realize that half their mobile phones themselves are from Chinese manufacturers. Some of them have Indian manufacturing units but it doesn’t take much scrutiny to realize that this is all political theater.

huge false equivalency. true India is maybe not a model image of a democracy but they are way more free than China. take a look at the freedom house reports for more details.

If they were really concerned about privacy, they would strengthen privacy laws. Adopt a GDPR like framework with opt-in consent and force platforms to implement a GrapheneOS like model with mock permissions and scoped consent. Banning apps is just a veiled attempt to appease other interests.

You mean like the DPDPA [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Personal_Data_Protecti...

DPDP is a watered down version of GDPR and is not as broad with its definition of personal data. Also for a privacy act, it does not have any directives on pseudonymization. But the worst part of DPDP is it makes it illegal for users to provide false information irrespective whether there is an intent to commit fraud. The jury is out whether one can be prosecuted for using an alias online or providing a fake location to an app.

If you're on iPhone that might make sense but on Android there is no need, lots of ways to get access to it after you moved to Canada, if you ever want to pick up smoking.

> Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it.

This, to me, is a weird stance. On what grounds did you advocate against it?

I just had to create a new account tonight after the ban[0] to keep using it. When you first start TikTok you might be presented with a wave of seemingly crap, bizarre or boring videos, but after several minutes of liking and watching the good stuff the algorithm very quickly starts serving you some excellent content.

There is some really, really great, really smart content on TikTok. I have always advocated for TikTok on those grounds.

[0] my accounts are all on USA servers and you can't log into them even through a VPN

>On what grounds did you advocate against it?

It's owned by the Chinese government and I don't trust the Chinese government.

Not OP, but the users of it I know my person seem hypermobilized by what I consider brainrot ideologies amd generally seem to have highly destabilized psychologies.

I find the hard core defenders of tiktok, such as yourself, weird. I know for a fact you get propaganda videos shoved in between your feed of 'good stuff' that you enjoy watching, but I know you wont admit that, or downplay it or say you can scroll past it. It doesn't change the fact the platform is used by the CCP to push a narrative, and while it might not work on you, there's some 120m users in America on TT. That's an awful lot of people who are being fed bullshit and lies.

> my accounts are all on USA servers

Keep telling yourself that ;)

What do these "propaganda" videos look like and how do I recognize them?

I did once see a cat that was named "Chairman Meow" in one video, which might have been very subtle CCP reprogramming now that I think on it.

FYI: They are very subtle.

Usually it is about behavior shifts and/or emotions. E.g. if I’d be watching videos with cute penguins and then seen a politician „adopting” penguins at zoo, that’d be a political propaganda.

Political ads have to be marked clearly but if politician is sympathetic to the platform and platform owner has a stake in keeping good relations then it’s just another penguins video, right?

And it’s omnipresent, so you stop paying attention. It’s not only China who is doing that. That’s why Paris Syndrome exists, car manufacturers don’t allow game makers to show their models in a destroyed form or why actresses don’t like to show their nostrils.

The problem with China (as far as I understand) is lack of the symmetry. They will sell you everything, but refuse to let your merchants in.

And I’d describe message shown to American users as a propaganda.

> I know for a fact you get propaganda videos shoved in between your feed of 'good stuff' that you enjoy watching

No idea how you could know this. I have never seen any concrete evidence that there are propaganda videos interlaced into people’s feeds. Everything I have heard is hypothetical. “China could” do this or that. If there were anything more than conjecture it would be huge news.

Casey Newton said on Hard Fork that he started a new account recently as an experiment and didn’t mention anything about China propaganda videos.

Here in my country, Chinese propaganda is vast in TikTok because of the disputes in the South China Sea, Scarborough Shoal and others. Maybe your feed is different since you aren't neighbors with China.

Fascinating, could you share an example link?

I don't use the app personally but I have friends who use TikTok and sometimes they would just casually tell me "oh yeah sometimes it shows me weird stuff like nazi videos, I just scroll past them"

The app's design is to get you to mindlessly doomscroll and not really think too hard about what it's showing you. If it shows you something insane occasionally it's no big deal, it's just the algorithm trying something new right?

It's very difficult to show any concrete evidence for how a secretive algorithm controlled by an adversary behaves. In an ideal world the burden should be on the platforms to prove that their algorithms are fair and not biasing towards certain viewpoints, but that might never happen.

I mean, if that's the standard, I've also unfortunately been exposed to more Nazi content than I'd like on Twitter/Reddit/etc. Should they be banned as well?

I've been using TikTok for four years and never once seen anything resembling Nazi content.

I opened a new account in Canada last night due to the ban. I saw a lot of Canadian memes, and a ton of wildly incomprehensible foreign material from every corner of the globe as the algo tried to figure me out. But none of it looked remotely political or ideological in any way.

If there is propaganda it is very covert. Compared with X where my feed is maybe 80% overt propaganda, including from the owner of the platform himself.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

You don’t need to know how the algorithm works you just need to demonstrate an effect it has. As of yet I have not seen that, and I am sure many journalists would love to prove it does.

> I know for a fact you get propaganda videos shoved in between your feed of 'good stuff' that you enjoy watching,

I have been using TikTok for months and I didn't see any propaganda at all. I only get content about my interests (3d printing, game dev, tech stuff). Sometimes it shows random stuff like animals and camping and funny videos or something but nothing like heavy politics at all.

I guess if I started engaging with "slightly political stuff" and started searching for it, it may be possible to get that kind of content, but yeah it's definitely not shown to me.

I expect that to stay unless I start to show intentions to the algorithm that I care about that kind of content.

So, when my feed dipped into politics, it was all anti-trump (though I'm traditionally conservative) and if it were my only news, I would have been flabbergasted by the Trump win. But apparently the app was pushing Trumps victory?

Yes, there is high quality long form content on TikTok, but most people just mindlessly consume the short form garbage, wasting their time and destroying their attention span. Everytime I watch teenagers or kids use TikTok I am genuinely horrified. It is clear that the platform does not optimize for thoughtful content, on the contrary! I certainly wouldn't advocate for it.

> On what grounds did you advocate against it?

It is incredibly addictive inducing drug like state:

> You’ll just be in this pleasurable dopamine state, carried away. It’s almost hypnotic, you’ll keep watching and watching. - Dr. Julie Albright

> You keep scrolling, she says, because sometimes you see something you like, and sometimes you don’t. And that differentiation — very similar to a slot machine in Vegas — is key.

I detest slot machines, so many lives wasted away, and I feel like we already spend too much time on computers to the detriment of both ourselves and society, let alone giving the CCP a hand to manipulate people on top of everything else

To me it is a time-sink that drowns our brains in a perpetual state of climax. Every video is designed to bring you to climax, and before it is done, the next video is loaded only to do the same. It is addictive and breeds impatience.

The medium is the message. I treat YouTube shorts and reels the same way. I'm sure there is smart content, but I'd rather take the time to research a subject rather wait for it to be randomly fed to me in the most exaggerated manner.

It feels like you downloaded it primarily so you could share this related passage.

> But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.

Are you saying that TikTok was banned because the company would not generate specific content? That's not at all how the app works, so maybe I am misunderstanding what your claim here is.

Not at all, the same way the US government does not ask Facebook or other media to produce specific content. However they still send take down requests and guidelines.

TikTok being a foreign entity was under no obligation to conform to the US government, well at least not until now. With the exception to illegal content.

So you're saying then that because TikTok could refuse lawful orders from the United States government, the US had to ban it?

The app was shutdown a couple of hours ago in the US and this was the message all TikTok users saw when they opened the app.[1]

The same guy who pushed for a ban massively last year, is going to save the app despite the security concerns he and most of our government said they had. If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.

[1] https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.c...

I have a feeling the ban is likely the result of "special interest" groups as opposed to a "classified briefing"

It's obvious the app is being banned because for once we had unbiased news about Israel/Palestine and the ongoing genocide.

A media outlet not easy to censor is unacceptable to the Israeli lobby, and therefore unacceptable to our politicians.

People will downvote you for revealing this, but it's the truth. I saw it on TikTok, after all.

Leading politicians said it explicitly. It's been discussed in the news since the conflict started.

It’s not. The effort started earlier. It’s just a convenient narrative.

Based on what do you say it's not? How is it a convenient narrative?

The ban both could have started earlier and been pushed to completion based on more recent factors.

Lawmakers talked about propaganda potential relating to Palestine directly, multiple times.

https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...

The whole TikTok legislation was not created to suppress Palestinian views, even if that may have been a side effect of it, and repeating that does not make it true.

It’s a convenient narrative because it sounds like „the government“ or „they“ want to conceal the truth, and suppress the honest rebels. It’s a trope.

Again, it may well be that some parts of the government feel like the side effects are beneficial, and I’m not commenting on that. But spinning the story to say this was the whole purpose of the law is simply not the truth, and instead pushing a certain narrative.

The choice doesn't have to be binary. There can be multiple factors, which should all be discussed.

Dismissing a frequently reported on factor that mentioned by officials requires a higher burden than vague commentary on narrative shaping. Trying to minimize it despite factual statements is its own narrative.

I don't disagree with you, and I don't dismiss any factor, but oppose the altered storyline of events offered by GP, which is simply not factually true. Subtly twisting history into a more convenient version may be presidential territory now, but that doesn't mean we should let a proper discussion devolve into shallow, black-and-white stories just because those are easier to understand.

In the second paragraph of the link you posted this is said:

> But in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, conservatives have become hyper fixated on policing pro-Palestinian messages on the app, accusing TikTok of influencing young Americans to “support Hamas” and favoring pro-Palestinian content.

If you follow the link attached to "influencing young Americans", you'll find Palestine isn't mentioned once, but Hamas is.

Of course there's bias everywhere, and we should have by now ways to follows stories to their source automagically by now. But anyhow.

The article and the poll it is based on is wild. Questions like, "do you think all Palistinians are anti-Semitic or just the Hamas terrorists" and similar push poll style nonsense offering limiting answers to slanted questions.

However at least one question is about whether the attacks on Israel...

Can be justified by the grievance of Palestinians

So while most questions force them to pick sides between Hamas and Israel with no option to say they support Palestinians they do get at least one chance to say whether they think the Palestinian people have legitimate grievances (though still only in context of supporting an attack).

And the Intercept article is very clear when they link that they think Palestinian and Hamas support are being intentionally conflated, just as you've tried to do again here.

The process to ban it was started years earlier.

It was, but why did the ban only succeed now?

Edit: to be honest, it is an honest question.

My guess is that the uniparty can’t afford a popular platform they don’t fully control and where there is significant dissent.

On Russia-Ukraine, the voices against US propaganda didn’t gain enough traction for them to worry about it. With Israel-Palestine, the opposition was for the first time reaching people who they previously never could.

because the election campaign has already ended?

> It was, but why did the ban only succeed now?

This has been going on for years now. The Navy banned TikTok because of security concerns in 2019.

Then in 2020, the US announced it was considering banning them. ByteDance planned to divest by selling to an American company. The Chinese government disagreed.

TikTok sued and that took a while to go through the courts.

Then TikTok tried negotiating to avoid having to divest for a couple years by placing all private user data in the US, but later leaked recordings made it clear that Chinese employees still had access.

A law to ban TikTok on US government devices was then passed.

Then a law to ban TikTok unless they divest was drafted, but it took a couple years to pass and then that had to wind its way through the courts.

For those who don't know, Mitt Romney said this.

"Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."

Just to add on:

I don’t imagine discussion of what’s happening to the Uyghurs is getting much traction in TikTok either.

Movement against TikTok started started with the Trump admin well before Oct 7, 2023 [1].

I think this is less Israel / Palestine and a better explanation lies elsewhere. Namely, that anti-China sentiment has been growing for a while now and Meta has plenty of money to burn (on the Metaverse, Lobbyists, etc.)

The actual law was passed after accounts of spying on Hong Kong citizens were made public [2].

———

1 — https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

2 — https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...

The effort to ban tiktok stalled for a few years due to public backlash.

Only after the strong shift in sentiment by younger Americans on Israel's genocidal actions did the effort renew with vigor.

Sure. Everyone reads the 100 page TOS for every site and app they use, right?

It baffles me that people can seem to comprehend that only the United States government has interests in its media outlets, and the authoritarian second to the US in the global stage don’t. 1. TikTok in the westernized form is banned in China. 2. When some people tried to move to rednote (the in the open Chinese app), they were getting banned in the first few hours for being gay and other ideas that came with them, so it’s very entirely plausible that also TikTok is heavily regulated from the officials of a foreign actor.

There's plenty of openly gay Chinese RedNote influencers, as there have been for years now [1]. I don't know why you're pushing disinformation. The Americans getting banned probably just violated their ToS, since they were in Chinese and they couldn't understand them.

[1] https://www.xiaohongshu.com/search_result?keyword=gay (requires log-in)

He’s not pushing disinformation.

US is the only state that pretends to champion absolute freedom of speech, to the point of citing violations of it when imposing sanctions on other nations.

"unbiased" as in: maximally biased to serve Chinese interests.

I'll go against my better judgment and ask: What are China's relations to Palestine and Israel? I genuinely do not have the slightest clue about that dynamic.

For that matter, what are China's interests regarding Russia/US? It seems like China would lose a lot of money in the event of America taking a major dive, but they could be preparing to make the case that they are a more stable regime with a more stable currency. I feel like that would be aligned with China's interests.

> For that matter, what are China's interests regarding Russia/US?

"If these two get into a fight, we can move on with our Taiwan agenda."

That's why Trump is pushing the EU to properly finance their defense, so the US can concentrate on Asia Pacific. He signalled this during his Notre Dame meeting with Macron, France being the only European NATO ally with a reliable army and interests in the region. To Trump, China is the new US rival, Russia is merely a bigger Iran with nukes and more advanced tech. I don't see him giving Tiktok a break.

Possibly none. But the logic goes like this - China sees that amplifying positive Palestinian stories serve to destabilize US discourse so they put their thumb on the scale to push those over positive Israeli stories.

And we know this type of thing works because we see it everyday with US internal propaganda. The last thing the US needs is an adversary with a direct line to the US populace controlling what they see. Also, I'm not even talking about misinformation, just pushing what stories are seen and not seen. Once you add in misinformation and bots it's pretty wild how easy it appears to control the population.

Ok but doesn’t that cancel out with other platforms that push the thumb in the other direction of the scale? What just happend reeks of supression of information to me.

> Ok but doesn’t that cancel out with other platforms that push the thumb in the other direction of the scale?

The point is not to push Americans towards Israel or Palestinians, the point is to push Americans apart from each other, so that each half of the political divide sees the other as supporting baby-murderers, as people you cannot be friends with, compromise with and shouldn't even try to talk to.

I am not exaggerating, each of these things I have seen being explicitly pushed.

TikTok already suppresses information in ways that furthers Chinese interests. Those interests can be as direct as promoting China or as nuanced as simply making people in the US dislike each other.

Any power, worth its salt (and China is most certainly one of those), will be acutely aware of conflict which involve opposing powers.

If something can be done through the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which damages the US, you can be sure China is working on it.

This reminds me of the Al Jazeera America (“AJAM”) news channel. They weren’t banned per sé, but it’s obvious they were doomed from the start. An Arab news network operating in the United States… if you think TikTok had a target painted on its back for being Chinese-owned… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_America

They arent "just" an arab media. They are financed and controlled by the dictatorship of qatar. That is like claiming Russia Today was domed because it was a "slavic" network. No it was domed because it is propaganda financed and controlled by a dictatorship.

Technically the BBC is a state broadcasting service subject to King Charles who, AFAIK, nobody voted for.

State run propaganda networks are actually a pretty good source of information; they are well resourced and have a vested interest in being perceived as high-credibility so they can tip the scale on a small number of issues critical to the state. And good propaganda is mostly done by omission and careful fact selection, although a lot of the bit-player dictatorships aren't competent enough to handle good propaganda.

It always rub me the wrong way that YouTube puts a "this is a state actor" disclaimer on a video uploaded by the well-known public media corporation of a western democracy, but put zero disclaimer whatsoever on a random video uploaded by an anonymous account created 2 minutes ago.

And Al Arabiya isnt banned because...?

TikTok wasn't banned. It was required to be sold but ByteDance refused to do so, probably because the CCP won't let them.

UK is millions of times better than Qatar but BBC is not too great. Somethings are great with BBC not everything. Fox news? Qatar doesn't micromanage everything.

I thought it was normal to take media with whatever slant it had and look for evidence supressed by others, check a few opposing outlets and piece together a narrative as close as possible to neutral. When thise outlets aren’t available we’re likely to get a much more distorted story.

Even the Palestinian authority banned Al Jazeera

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-authority-...

Because they were leaned on by Israel.

Citation needed.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas are not exactly friends, they don't need much convincing to ban Al Jazeera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict

What evidence do you have that preexisting news coverage was biased regarding Israel/Palestine? From many Israeli perspective, much of MSM is biased against Israel! And funny enough, I can see that repeating pattern for every interest group. Left-Wingers say MSM is all Right-Wing and biased against them, Right-Wingers say MSM is taken over by the Woke Mob.

There are dozens of contradictory narratives depending on who you ask, what makes your paticular narrative more compelling than the competing narratives?

"major major major generational problem … We have a TikTok problem, we have a Gen-Z problem." https://www.liberationnews.org/israels-pinkwashing-task-forc...

Worth noting: > In a phone call leaked by the Tehran Times

It's a recorded audio file, not an opinion or hearsay, so I don't think the leaking organization matters.

Would you feel better if an anonymous user uploaded it to Reddit/Twitter/Tiktok?

NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity of the recording in some way.

A state-controlled newspaper in an autocratic county? It could be something they did verify as true and just happens to align with their agenda - or it could be nonsense and they know it. Or they couldn't just shrugged and said "makes the US look bad, run it."

I think most people don't appreciate the levels of internal review and fact-checking that go on when a national paper in the US ends up with a big story in its lap.

NYT, WaPo, etc aren't very likely to publish it. It'd be in the same bucket as Jeff Epstein - politically toxic and the majors aren't going to take the lead drawing attention to it even if it is plausible. Facts would need to be in the public sphere for a while and gaining traction before they pick it up.

It might be the Iranians making stuff up, although realistically that sort of activity is what should be expected without any leaks at all. It has been obvious since around 2016 that the corporate media doesn't have the ability to single-handily dominate the narrative any more and that will impact national security propaganda because, you know, what military would be stupid enough to leave that sort of messaging to chance?

> NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity

Oh yeah, like the verification of their stories of the oven babies

If anything, this whole ordeal has shown that all media is at some level censored and controlled by special interests behind the scenes

We’ve been living in a post-truth world for a long time, way before AI

Who lived in a world with no lies, Adam?

Great point. Ever since we’ve had language, we’ve had lies

My comment just points to the naïveté of thinking that somehow big media are big sources of unbiased truth that we can all trust

> Schwartz said as much in an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December 31. “The New York Times said, ‘Let’s do an investigation into sexual violence’ — it was more a case of them having to convince me,” she said. Her host cut her off: “It was a proposal of The New York Times, the entire thing?”

> The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...

Surely the NYT would verify, right?

And of course the WaPo has no conflicts of interest being owned by Bezos either

I would.

10 years ago, no. Today? An audiofile is really easy to make with or even just a couple people in a studio.

It's also really easy for Greenblatt to issue a denial.

That is, of course, unless it is true.

A denial wouldnt necessarily indicate that it is false (he has every reason to deny it, but lying is a risk) but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is, in fact, true.

There is a very low cost to denying lies, so the absence of a denial (unlike its presence) is a very good indicator.

"No rumour is true until it's categorically denied" -- Otto Von Bismarck.

> There is a very low cost to denying lies.

So people can just lie.

See: Clinton and Lewinski, the Profumo affair, Russian troop buildup on the Ukraine border 2022, Russian attacks on Ukraine 2014+, claims by NSA execs prior to the Snowden leaks, etc.

I don't doubt he said it, because I think it's pretty plain to see it's a correct analysis - antisemitism is rife with the new generation to a degree that, to me at least, is quite scary. I just think it's quite instructive that a hostile state is trying to use this to sow discord.

There's an extent to which that word was used to mean criticism of the previous administration's foreign policy. Politicians are generally not known for their honor, and will try to hide behind anything, no matter how sacrosanct.

> antisemitism is rife with the new generation

Is there an example one could provide of this which shows members of the new generation criticizing Jewish people for being Jewish? Surely it wouldn’t be examples of people voicing criticism of the actions of people who happen to be Jewish.

Oh sweetheart. Just search twitter for “jews”.

Yeah, fair enough; it was a mistake to ask for examples, I realize that now. One could probably go to twitter and search “chemtrails” and find a lot of words written seemingly without preceding critical thought. I don’t think many people would assert that chemtrail conspiracy theories are rife with the new generation, however.

Sure, it's an old trope to sit back and ask for examples, pretending your epistemic standard is whether someone on a forum can muster up the examples, and then when nobody does or you wave them away, you've proved that something isn't happening. You've done the investigation.

https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-infected-antisemitism-spreadi...

Yeah but what was the prevalence of anti-Israeli sentiment prior to the 40k civilian massacre?

I wasn’t even paying attention to the news one day and CNN was casually interviewing a Palestinian father holding a dead baby corpse in his hands, with the head covered in a blood soaked bag. On CNN, at 10am.

You don’t have to be particularly impressionable to be affected by this.

History is going to be unmerciful in its documenting of this, no one is going to forget the sin here.

Anyone who actually cares the tiniest bit about antisemitism would have the decoupling of Israel and the Jewish identity as the first order of business. Nothing comes even close.

A state consistently using Jews to excuse its actions, behavior which is validated by US policymakers, it's just orders of magnitude worse than anything else, Israel has promoted antisemitism more in a year than every other group in the last 50 years put together.

Only worth noting if Greenblatt has denied the phone call.

E.g when Russia stopped denying the presence of North Korean troops, it was pretty much cast iron proof that Ukraine's recent videos of the prisoners were not fakes.

A denial wouldnt necessarily mean it wasn't true, but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is.

Whenever the Russian government denies something like you're suggesting, I take it to be an admission. I'm usually right.

You're naive and wrong.

So you’re admitting that the call was real, we should just ignore it because it’s inconvenient to your beliefs?

You shouldn't ignore it, you should listen carefully, and you should ponder why an enemy state wants it to outrage you.

They know their argument is bolstered by the truth being widely known in this case, so it benefits them to leak it.

Why is it so important to you that the truth is suppressed?

Circa 1968 America:

We have a TV problem, more specifically, lots of coffins on TV problem.

Circa 2003 America:

We have TV problem, a media problem, specifically coffins all over the media problem

Special interest groups that spend a huge amount of money to unseat representatives who go against their interests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/16/cong...

The new president is populist. Once the rage of the TikTokrs is overwhelming, he's going to find a way to reinstate it.

He is populist second, and transactional first and foremost. He always has put himself, namely his vanity, first.

Vanity first, then wallet.

I don't know how you think other politicians operate, but their self-interest always comes before the interests of their constituents (maybe there is the odd exception).

And loves being the hero. When the app was taken down, there was a generic message about the ban. Then 1 hour later, it was changed to include:

“We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!”

I wonder what happened behind the scenes. This gives me flashbacks of the signed stimulus checks

Carter, Reagan, and some hostages, for example.

Not familiar with that. Could you elaborate?

It seems to imply he’s not the only one who’s done something like that. In that case, I totally agree, political figures are masters of political posturing and taking credit

And that goes for any party and probably every country in the world

Look up Iran hostage situation and how unelected presidential candidate undermined an active president.

A special interest group called Meta.

Of course. TT is to China as WMDs were to Iraq

No real anything presented to the American public, just handwaving and finger pointing

It just barely needs to make sense and it becomes the center of the conversation, derailing any meaningful or real discussion

Very effective propaganda

If what you say is true then we should've expected a buyer to come forward, or at least signal some interest in buying the platform, surely?

Not sure why it would imply that

However, there’s been a lot of people not just signaling but openly announcing they are vying for the purchase. Like Kevin O’Leary, who said he’s offering $20b in cash to buy TT

It’s very telling that the TT ban was not a standalone bill, but rather just one item of a bill that included $26 billion in aid for Israel, $13b for Ukraine and $8b for Taiwan

Congress can’t even agree on the federal govt budget, but they can almost unanimously agree to support war, and banning TT

If ByteDance's interest in TikTok was purely commercial, they would have made the commercial decision to spin out the US market into a US-listed public company or sold it to a US buyer.

The fact that they chose to shut down instead, strongly suggests, that they have interests in TikTok beyond financial.

That doesn't follow. A third option is: shut down, wait for the pushback and for things to return to how they were before. And it might just be working.

There's no guarantee that will happen, and even if it does, TikTok will likely have lost marketshare by being unavailable for a period of time.

A financially motivated actor would have avoided the damage by spinning it out. They likely could have even kept a large minority share.

Google also opted to pull out of China instead of selling their Chinese operations to a domestic company. Does it imply that Google had interests beyond financial when operating in China?

I think it's more likely that they don't want the brand name dilution that comes from having a separate TikTok US that's probably going to be a shittier version of the original since it doesn't have the original algorithm (which isn't allowed to be exported) or the original TikTok engineers working on it.

The TikTok branding and user base are already firewalled from ByteDance's Chinese operations.

Their Chinese variant of TikTok is called Douyin, so there wouldn't be any brand dilution from spinning TikTok off.

I also have doubts that the technology behind TikTok would be difficult for a western engineer to understand. It's a relatively straigtforward algorithm, and it's details have been shared in a public paper.

Could it be that the straight forward algorithm which empowers the user is exactly the problem with tiktok in the US?

Douyin has the exact same logo - how is that "firewalled?"

Douyin isn't available outside China.

TikTok isn't available within China.

There's no risk of brand dilution.

I just watched Douyin yesterday on their site for numerous hours without a login to try and understand the differences.

Douyin is very much "available."

> Google also opted to pull out of China instead of selling their Chinese operations to a domestic company. Does it imply that Google had interests beyond financial when operating in China?

Yes. At the time Larry & Sergey still ran the place and did have a somewhat idealist approach to running Google. When it turned out that it was impossible to bring an uncensored search engine to China, they shut it down.

Alternatively, it's a single national security bill.

But actually, it is a standalone peice of legislation - the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Thanks, I hate it

> made them vote together across party lines

Ha, is that uniparty vote supposed to be something meaningful? If the government had true concerns, they could 1) be aired to the public and 2) other senators like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul would not be speaking against the ban.

People can change their views and minds. It's only a problem when you lie and pretend you didn't. Pres Biden signed the law and could suspend it now if he wanted, but he chose not to do it as it'd be contradictory to his own signing. And of course soon-to-be President Trump will get the credit for reverting it. Nobody cares about the details beyond those invested into politik.

It's meaningful because it's one of the few things congress could actually pass. You can count on one hand the number of bills that passed this year with that kind of support that wasn't something like a budget bill.

Or maybe occam's razor suggests that there's indeed something more concerning about usage of the app that we aren't privy to?

Yes, occam's razor would suggest the government randomly decided exactly now was the time to start working in our best interests, and also those interests are super secret and have absolutely nothing to do with recent geopolitical happenings nor anything to do with the stated beliefs of the politicians driving the government.

I don't know why you think it's randomly (or recently) decided -- it started in 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...), culminating in this act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...) banning the app, which passed 360-58.

Have you ever gotten 36 people to agree to something, let alone 360? There's obviously more to this that we aren't aware of.

Sure, they don't like the idea of china influencing the youth but more importantly it's making Israel look bad.

This is take is so naive. Tiktok is the equivalent of CBS, NBC, FOX and ABC all being owned by the US's largest threat/enemy's government.

Chinese nationals are banned from even accessing TikTok within China in addition to the Chinese government not allowing America media apps to compete their market.

There isnt an argument in the world that this app isnt bad for US interests and the only reason this is emotional at all for people is that it took too long for the government to act.

So are we at war with china now or what?

Cold-ish war.

Blatantly pandering to Donald Trump is the new ESG, DEI and woke combined for silicon valleys

Haha. DEI is gone unless it’s pro-Trump.

I wonder how much ByteDance got from the incoming administration to pull that stunt. Super shady. "We voluntarily shut down our service in your country (er, I mean, we HAD TO, for real!) but don't worry, a true hero is soon arriving to save the day!"

There are much bigger factors at play than a few billion dollars

Word, I imagine there are all kinds of shenanigans at play, I'm just not spending that much effort thinking about it. We'll never know the complete story on any of this stuff. Maybe in tens of years, if ever.

You mean more money?

Because in the end it's always about money.

Well about power really, but money is the main means to get that.

Definitely power... bought by billionaires. A few government officials outright said they want to be able to control the narrative.

probably not for the guy who gets the few billion dollars.

Haha fair. But I don't think any company should be strong-armed by another nation into selling. Meta would never be allowed to sell their "Chinese arm" to a domestic Chinese entity...part of the reason there isn't one

The Chinese don't really use facebook in the first place do they though? And facebook's utility to China is the same as TikTok's, just less direct: manipulating Americans and other non-Chinese users of Facebook. It seems like people want to be manipulated though.

Some people just hate their own government so much, they think any other government would be better. Including the known bad guys of the era.

Usually this does not work out that well. Point in case - Central Europe after WWII.

Chinese astroturfing is a thing too, but in many cases it is legit naive people.

"Some people just hate their own government so much, they think any other government would be better. Including the known bad guys of the era."

Yep. I call it "Chomskyism"

i don't understand your point if there is one

What about the principle of reciprocity?

China doesn’t allow US social media companies to operate there—why should the US unilaterally allow Chinese social media companies to operate here with no reciprocity?

Continuing to play cooperate over and over when the other player keeps playing defect is not smart.

Does China have a first amendment restricting the abrdigment of all press and ? Was there are special carve out in the American first amendment for issues of reciprocity or for foreign media? No.

My biggest fear isnt China or Russia (like Im told it should be) but becoming like China and Russia. It's happening faster every day.

When the first and the fourth amendments are shredded then Putin and Xi Jinping get to say, with increasing truthfulness, "America is no better than us".

There is no First Amendment issue here. The Supreme Court already determined that:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

The Supreme Court also determined that Long Island isn’t an island — that doesn’t mean they’re right.

The supreme court ruled that banning it because of "the risk that user data stored on American servers might be exfiltrated" didnt fall under the first amendment.

The head of the FBI (among many others) said the ban needed to happen because China could use it to spew propaganda.

When Russia is heavily critical of what one of its media outlet says and then bans it because of tax irregularities or something, only Putin supporters are under any illusions as to why it happened.

The 1st Amendment does not apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.

And even if it did it isn't a suicide pact that forces the US to do very stupid things like let the CCP use TikTok to manipulate US citizens to the benefit of the CCP and detriment of the US.

The first amendment applies to US citizens using TikTok to communicate.

The first amendment applies to the communication of US citizens. If TikTok is found to be unlawful for non-free speech reasons and its distribution is outlawed, 1) Americans can still use it for communication and 2) Americans can use any number of other things for communication.

It wasn’t even the manipulation that was the NatSec concern, it was the amount of sensitive data they were pulling of not just TikTok users but any friends or family of theirs that they had in their contacts. This means they have data on people who work in sensitive departments, military bases, etc. and they had already been established as providing that data up to the Chinese Government. It’s the same reason India banned it, it was being used as an espionage tool.

Now the other problem is that Meta will sell much of the same data to anyone who is buying. We need to do something about surveillance capitalism from private industry too.

You shouldn't care what China or Russia say. The first amendment works only for American citizens, not for foreign subversion agents.

It's more nuanced than that.

Foreign nationals have at least some First Amendment rights in the US. Foreign agents or countries may have restrictions on some other grounds.

<https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...>

<https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/>

TikTok tends toward foreign country / agent as I read it.

Things get a little weirder when they're mass media. A lot changed when the 'fairness doctrine' got thrown away… essentially you're arguing that adversarial powers should get to run mass propaganda operations with all the technological means we've learned, on the grounds it's 'speech'.

No citizen has comparable power to influence (and hide their tracks/sources) no matter how manically they post. It's rapidly becoming 'giant computer farms full of AI following scripts' and that still counts as 'speech', but rather than an individual's opinions it's targeted influence operations towards indirect goals.

It can be as close to 'crying fire in a crowded theater' as you like, except it's methods to coordinate teams of people all crying fire, knowing there's no fire, but intending to cause a mass casualty event through their actions.

Speech?

So many people think the freedom of speech means a right to your speech being amplified.

It does not.

> China doesn’t allow US social media companies to operate there.

This statement is not entirely accurate. It is possible for a US social media company to operate in mainland China, provided it complies with local regulations, including hosting its servers in China and adhering to censorship requirements. For instance, LinkedIn operated in China until August 2023. However, it may ultimately prove unfeasible due to factors such as user preferences, the volume of censorship requests, or even perceived unfair competition. Since at least 2010, when Google faced demands for compliance with Chinese censorship regulations, the requirements for foreign companies to operate in China have been clearly outlined.

No comment on these policies, but it is undeniable that businesses operating in foreign markets must comply with local laws. However, by intervening in business activities, undermining corporate property rights, and contradicting its own stated principles of free market economics and international trade rules, the U.S. has demonstrated economic nationalism. I can't tell who is playing defect in this case.

Western companies operating outside China are often forced to agree with China's censorship requirements too. Look up the "great cannon" on wikipedia. Many such examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Cannon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

You are comparing oranges to apples here.

Basically, there are 2 legislation in the world, legistlation and the China legislation. In China, there are laws on the surface and there are rules underneath. For example, the government never admitted that the GFW exists, yet it keeps blocking more and more sites. The government never bans online forums, yet it never grants license to open a online bbs, since like ten years ago.

During some political sensitive times, the government would send secret requirement to local companies like ByteDance and Tencent on how to censor the social media. Back when I worked at ByteDance, when the 19th Communist Party congress was open, the auditors would be in a war room, just for making sure that no negative news or comments would be released. American companies also work with the government on censorship, more or less, but that's another story.

It's very common for Chinese people who have been fooled by the government to say that, these western companys left by themselves. But it's not the laws that on the surface drives them away, it's the rules underneath.

The orange grove is being cut down, sadly:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinfo...

The US is taking more control over social media, more than the government ever had over traditional media. This is similar to how the switch to the digital medium has been used as an opportunity to weaken the fourth amendment.

I agree that the US is going to the wrong direction. I was just saying that what China did is a bad example, not a justification for other governments.

I think Xi himself even calls it "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law")

I'm not against your ideas in general, but I have to point out that I have several friends in China running small online forums despite the obstacles. Yes, it is rather difficult to get the licenses; Yes, they have to censor themselves; Yes, they have to temporally shut down during congress.

My point is that China isn't selectively banning websites from a single country. I wouldn't criticize if US apply the reasons of banning TikTok to all foreign websites.

>This statement is not entirely accurate. It is possible for a US social media company to operate in mainland China, provided it complies with local regulations, including hosting its servers in China and adhering to censorship requirements.

Read about Google's search engine project in China aka Project Dragonfly[0]; it was a totalitarian dystopian nightmare where CCP wanted to know everything about people who use Google, like their queries and mobile phone numbers and plus they demanded from Google that millions of websites/webpages must be censored (removed from Google's China index).

Project Dragonfly was like Stalin's manifestation of perfect surveillance and propaganda tool.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)

Rest assured agencies in the U.S. can (and do) do all of that and more to U.S. Google today with a simple warrant or takedown notice.

US is liberal democracy, China is not and how much information is censored on Google.com if any? And did US government use Google to target individuals or ethnic groups within US?

>how much information is censored on Google.com if any?

Is this a serious question? Google removes all sorts of content from its index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#:~:text=G....

Majority of those removals are safety removals not ideological censorship based on some socialist or whatever ideology.

No its “intellectual property” “protection” based on some capitalist or whatever ideology

Same thing, different beneficiaries in power

Ok so US doesn't want "socialist" influence in US and China doesn't want "capitalistic" influence in China. Eye for an eye. Problem solved.

> with a simple warrant

See the difference?

You are putting a lot of faith in the police and judges that issue those things.

Just a little bit more than my faith in “no oversight whatsoever”, yes.

and there is no transparency needed, warrants don't have to be public in most countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(...

Not really?

Americans have way more faith in America being the good guys than is warranted.

And Google gave the NSA direct connections into their data centers in order to spy on US citizens in secret.

It is possible for a US social media company to operate in mainland China, provided it complies with local regulations, including hosting its servers in China and adhering to censorship requirements.

From experience I can tell you that also means handing over all encryption keys which is a violation of most companies compliance requirements. That means creating an entirely separate org for compliance in China with entirely different b2b and end-user contracts, terms, etc... I know of a few companies that get around this only because they are more totalitarian than China and have their own circuits bypassing the great firewall. Not naming them.

> > China doesn’t allow US social media companies to operate there. > This statement is not entirely accurate. It is possible for a US social media company to operate in mainland China, provided it complies with local regulations, including hosting its servers in China and adhering to censorship requirements.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter#China

Yeah sure, let’s copy the censorship tactics of a dictatorship

Well in theory one of those countries is "free" - it's why you could buy Pravda at news stands in NYC but could not buy the New York Times in Moscow.

But we didn’t allow Moscow to edit the New York Times.

I don't want reciprocity between limitations on the rights of Chinese citizens and the rights of Americans. Our government should be defending our freedoms, not imitating Communism.

We're supposed to be a democratic republic with safeguards for our rights, not a mercenary war machine that can be reprogrammed at will by a few people lucky enough to influence policymaking.

> What about the principle of reciprocity?

This sounds good on the surface, but China and the US have very different regimes. Full reciprocity would mean turning the US into a China style dictatorship. For instance, if China censors western press in their country should we be censoring Chinese press here?

You know that there is no Facebook in China? The same for Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. Even Google Search is not available in China. And not because those companies didn't want to work in China, simply China forbade them to do it. Funny thing, even TikTok in China is blocked... Chinese audience have Douyin from ByteDance. So it isn't like this that "bad US is doing something to poor Chinese company"

There is no Facebook in China for the same reason there will be no TikTok in the United States. Both Meta and ByteDance won't let another country run their business. Facebook was given the chance to operate in China if they complied with China's rules

The “Chinese arm” of ARM wasn’t even sold; it just went renegade and stole everything from the parent.

I think Activision Blizzard did.

Yes, but really, not much more than what a cult leader will demand for access.

This message about Trump saving TikTok is just wishful thinking from TikTok.

1.) It's pointless, TikTok is officially banned in US. Even if trump decides to find a US buyer for it, it will go under strict ownership investigation. So there's no way Chinese government has any influence anymore.

2.) This means that any future Chinese apps that get popular will get banned, and no need to go through any court challenges since there's precedent and law

3.) A lot of people already left TikTok and will not come back - why would they when they know the app could be gone at any minute? The traffic from the original TikTok will just keep getting split and syphoned, until the magnificent seven claims most of it

That was my first thought as well, but do you have any reason to say it's wishful thinking rather than the result of a conversation with Trump's team?

I read the message as more as being an ego stroke to someone that everyone else is ego stroking right now - seeing as Trump has a lot of influence over people further down in his party's org chart, there might be enough reason.

Trying to argue about legality is unlikely to hold much sway given how other legal issues ended.

I think 3 is a weak point. I've left multiple social media platforms several times and got sucked back in days or months later. That was when I was actively trying to not use them.

Edit: I think all it needs is a link from a friend to some TikTok content and they are back in.

Other way round: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/jeff-yass-billionaire...

Yass has paid in tens of millions of dollars, he's going to call that in to get an unban.

I really don't know which way to bet on this though. The Trump presidency is going to be consistently unpredictable.

Yeah I was thinking that too! Plus the "look how we made you look like the hero" aspect. Shady stuff all around.

> the “look how we made you look like the hero” aspect

They know exactly what they are doing. That message is going to be effective and the person it’s targeted at doesn’t understand that it can be spun any way the CCP wants to spin it. How does he not see how risky letting a foreign government run something like TikTok in the US?

Decisions will be consistently made in favor of the highest bidder.

Cam you detail exactly what conspiracy you are alleging without evidence?

This is the corporate version of "he quit before they could fire him".

There's plenty of evidence, it's just circumstantial - but that doesn't make it any less obvious that there is something going on between TikTok and DT.

They probably got promises saying that they could continue to operate if they agreed to this Trump marketing campaign. That's enough?

In which case, the question is: what were other Republicans told that they didn't sign off on this plan? It seems quite a bit like a coordinated arrangement between China and ONE guy who was running for office.

Since he was running as a Republican, why are they not also signing off on all this? Why is the completely Trump-friendly Supreme Court not signing off on all this?

I’m sure they expect the issue to be resolved by paying the incoming president.

That's a lot of confidence, you must know something I don't. I'm but a bystander Canadian without much of a dog in this race, but it's a pretty serious allegation to suggest that tomorrow's World's Most Powerful Man is on the ByteDance/TikTok payroll.

Are you able to expand a bit?

You wanna play coy about the guy who shot beans commercials in the oval office?

I think on HN it's easier to just be clear about what we're positing; I'm not really sure what you mean by playing coy.

Do you think Trump's being paid by ByteDance to lift the ban?

Trump has displayed a disturbing pattern of changing his opinions and actions after meeting with monied or powerful people who have vested interest in said change.

Often this is accompanied by a public message of flattery or a donation to his "political" coffers.

Totally agree on that, public flattery's a very common tribute in international politics. So I'll ask again, are we of the opinion that Trump is being paid by actors, foreign or domestic, to enact change here?

I do believe that. We are talking about the admin that launched Trumpcoin which soared to tens of billions in market cap in the last few days.

So, just to make it very clear what I implied, yes. I believe he and his organisations receive benefits, directly or not, in money or other forms, for him steering policy towards what’s convenient to whoever is paying.

An easy way is for TikTok to just promise to algorithm away any criticism of him in the US.

Like every other politician. Trump is just less subtle about it.

Politicians take political decisions, not logical ones.

> Do you think Trump's being paid by ByteDance to lift the ban?

There is never a need to be that direct. Republican and Democrat donors tell politicians what positions to take. Trump doesn't need to take money directly from a company. He takes it from his donors, who in turn take it from the company in some form.

In this case, the theory is that billionaire Jeff Yass (an investor in Tik Tok) has "persuaded" Trump to flip his position.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/jeff-yass-billionaire...

rbanffy's comment was exactly as direct as I specified, and I'll reiterate their comment for posterity - "I’m sure they expect the issue to be resolved by paying the incoming president".

My understanding now is that now we've shifted from "ByteDance pays Trump to flip" to "American businessman Jeff Yass meets with Trump and convinces him to flip"

I hope you can understand that as a non-American observer I see a lot of distance between those two claims and find myself confused when they're treated with equivalency.

It doesn’t even need to go through Jeff Yass. It can just be a new Trump resort and casino getting expedited approval in Hong Kong, or some other place. Imagine the business opportunities being POTUS will bring to him and his family. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

It doesn't take much imagination; he spent 4y as POTUS and most people agree it was to his personal benefit. I'm not aware of this leading to expedited approvals for Trump resorts in other countries, but it seems you're more familiar with his dealings than I am.

I'd still love your clarification though - do you still stand by the claim that Trump is being paid to reneg on his position re. TikTok, as per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42755872 ?

Yes. It's not going to be hard 'traceable' cash, but it'll be favours and other permits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Moscow

I'm a bit confused by the connection you're trying to make - it sounds as if the project never went anywhere?

He never loses his own money - he gets paid for licensing his name and brand and for his "expertise". It's the investors who get defrauded.

The only difference is that the money given is laundered through donors. I am an American, and I am very cynical.

How out of touch with general politics are you? This is how things are done, globally, in every democracy, since forever, you just need to look close enough. I can see similar type of corruption all over Switzerland for example where I live, mostly in public projects and decisions. Locals mostly don't see anything, so everybody is happy. You just have to have a keen eye for corruption, which is easy for somebody coming from eastern Europe since there its ingrained in the system(s) and permeates every aspect of societies.

Non-democratic places have more direct path for bribes but otherwise its same.

I’d say I’m generally fairly in touch with global politics, it’s a bit inflammatory for you to ask, truthfully.

I think that local level corruption in my small town in Canada or in yours in Switzerland is pretty markedly different from what’s been originally presented, which is that DJT was paid directly by ByteDance to adjust his position.

I said that ByteDance expects that paying Trump will make everything go away. From his comment on an executive order, it seems clear he’s willing to go over a law passed by the Congress.

Trump will apply a basic principle. Could this thing manipulate my voter base at scale and in the wrong direction? Yes -> kill

I think it's fair to demonstrate a pattern of behavior without speculating on specifics. Similarly, Trump did not collude with Russia in secret, but he did openly ask them to help him run the election on national TV. What did Russia get for that? Maybe nothing. Maybe goodwill.

Much of Trump's decisionmaking in his first term was erratic and generally unwarranted, but I still I think it's totally fair to ask for clarification about claims of that level of severity.

To my knowledge, if I'm understanding rbanffy's position correctly, this would be the first time in history US president was directly being bribed by a foreign actor, so I still maintain it's worth seeking clarification.

Am I wrong in holding skepticism here? I don't doubt there are political points to be gained for Trump here, especially given the domestically controversial nature of the ban, but I'd really love for someone to hold true to the original notion under question that someone (ByteDance, CCP, etc.) is "paying the incoming president", as rbanffy suggseted.

See the inauguration fund. Money completely unaccounted for and that his team is saying pay to get exclusive access to Trump. It’s pay to play and it’s legal (at least for Americans).

Certainly this is not the first time that's happened. Trump has been President before. What he got up to is indeed the first time in history that happened, but not because he was directly bribed by a foreign actor: that's most likely already happened. The case of Trump is entirely stranger.

> Am I wrong in holding skepticism here?

Certainly. The whole corruption setup is always done in such a way that there is never direct proof, only some more or less well hidden ones. So if you expect somebody here will post a recording of their bribe negotiations, that won't ever happen, Trump would directly order CIA to eliminate such person with extreme prejudice, and that's how it would have been done.

Look, he is crook, smart, properly fucked up man baby with issues that no psychologist could ever fix, but he is a crook at the core. These are facts. Enough evidence with few seconds of googling to condemn 10 such persons of highly amoral and sometimes also criminal behavior. And everybody knows it, even here. So folks understand how to deal with such currently most powerful person, so they do.

I don't get where your doubts come from. Facts are out there, you only need to connect few dots.

> Am I wrong in holding skepticism here?

As somebody coming from a third-world country, it’s a matter of fact that the people view politicians as a corrupt group. They think they are better than the people they represent, they are multiple times richer than the population and campaigns range from distorted truths to clear lies.

Proven or unproven, a claim that a given politician received bribes to influence something is not met with skepticism, but a mere “yeah, of course”!

Some say the US is a rich third-world country, or becoming one.

Why do we bother with the farce that elected representatives are better than us? They are looking for their own interests.

The comment said payment, that does not neccesarily mean money. There are things that tiktok can do for him and the money is least of it.

It's hard to find definitions of payment which don't relate to money. There's no doubt in anyone's minds that geopolitical positions benefit some states over others, it's a completely different premise to prescribe real direct compensation.

The waters get pretty muddy if we're willing to suggest that American presidents are "paid" by other nations to enact policy which benefits said nations, it's not unreasonable to ask for clarity about such claims.

Money is simply debt; an IOU to hand in for something of value in the future. If it helps to have the money abstraction in mind, imagine the debt being called immediately, whereby the thing of value is delivered immediately.

Most people I know treat money as fiat, something concrete and exchangeable.

What I think you’re describing is political favor, something entirely different from what was originally presented.

> Most people I know treat money as fiat, something concrete and exchangeable.

Exactly. Money is the decree – the concrete representation of debt. A recognizable token that can be given to someone that says "I owe you something", which can subsequently be exchanged back by the recipient to get the something of value that they are owed. Which you already know if you've ever used money before, and no doubt you have.

But, as it pertains to the topic at hand, in cases where there is no reason to delay delivery of the actual value, you can skip holding the debt. You could go through the motions of receiving money, and then giving it right back in exchange for the thing of value that you are owed, but there is no practical difference between that and cutting money out of the picture and simply accept the thing of value as payment.

> What I think you’re describing is political favor

Money might be a tool used in offering political favor, I suppose, but that is well beyond the content of my comment about the function of money. How did you manage to reach this conclusion?

> How did you manage to reach this conclusion?

I think it's fairly obvious, no? The originally presented case was that Trump had received payment for assuring TikTok's survival. I've noted a few times in this thread that this is a really poor framing, and that it's more likely his actions were motivated by politics, not fiduciary gain.

Again, what does that have to do with our discussion about money?

> it's a pretty serious allegation

Is it, now? He’s a corrupt convicted felon who brags about lying, which despite that was elected president. Do you think he gives a shit about anyone’s allegations? He’d sell your mother for a pack of peanuts. And why not? From his point of view he can do anything he wants and there will be no serious consequences.

I recently learned, thanks to another HN comment, that more than half of the USA population has a literacy level below the 6th grade. Suddenly it answered so many questions.

https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/post/literacy-s...

And don't forget that 7% of all American adults believe that chocolate milk comes from brown cows (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/15/seven...)

Kinda says it all.

Is it "7% selected such option in a poll" or is it "7% actually believe this"?

People in polls repeatedly select stupid answer either due to confusion, trolling, bad poll design, not caring about what they select and so on.

See https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and... ("Lizardman’s Constant Is 4%")

> (a friend on Facebook pointed out that 5% of Obama voters claimed to believe that Obama was the Anti-Christ, which seems to be another piece of evidence in favor of a Lizardman’s Constant of 4-5%. On the other hand, I do enjoy picturing someone standing in a voting booth, thinking to themselves “Well, on the one hand, Obama is the Anti-Christ. On the other, do I really want four years of Romney?”)

Yes but 34% of adults lacking literacy proficiency were born outside the US. It seems to me that this is more a reflection that the US has the highest percentage of immigrants of all countries on earth.

> 54% of adults have a literacy below a 6th-grade level (20% are below 5th-grade level).

From the link.

GP’s quote was taken from directly below yours.

> GP’s quote was taken from directly below yours.

They completely changed their post after the Tronno reply, which made the replies look out of context.

Their original post, quoted verbatim in my other comment¹, was:

> It may be you who lacks the critical reasoning skills. Did you happen to think about the fact that 23% of the population is actually younger than age 12, meaning they wouldn’t even be in 6th grade yet?

¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42757642

Adult population is obviously implied. Love when the universe gifts us this level of irony.

Edit: The parent comment completely changed what it said, making all replies look out of context. I’m leaving my original reply, which includes a verbatim quote of the parent, below.

This is incredibly ironic. It’s 54% of the adult population, which is abundantly clear by the provided link (in a bullet point, it’s hard to miss). It only takes a minimum of good faith and critical reasoning skills to:

1. Realise that of course the statistic will not include people younger than the level used as the threshold.

2. Click through and at least skim the link to steel man someone’s argument.

People have been accusing Trump of this or that for almost a decade, but where is it? 90% of lawyers are partisan democrats who have hated Trump from day 1 because he is a threat to the professional managerial class. They have been digging for nearly a decade to find something to use against him.

What did they find? He was convicted for paying with his own money to pay a pornstar to hide an affair, in a case that CNN’s own head legal analyst said “contorted the law.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-...

At a certain point you gotta put up or shut up.

> but where is it?

Where is what?

> 90% of lawyers are partisan democrats who have hated Trump from day 1 because he is a threat to the professional managerial class.

That is clearly a conspiratorial statistic taken out of nowhere.

> He was convicted for paying with his own money to pay a pornstar to hide an affair

He was convicted of falsifying business records with intent to defraud and conspiring to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty...

> That is clearly a conspiratorial statistic taken out of nowhere.

95% of law firm contributions in 2019 went to Biden: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/snubbing-trump-law.... This support wasn’t out of economic interest. The overwhelming majority of lawyers are ideologically captured and hate Trump at a visceral and irrational level for not subscribing to that ideology.

> He was convicted of falsifying business records with intent to defraud and conspiring to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.

Why quote the statute instead of the facts, which aren’t really in dispute? After he had already won the election, he reimbursed his lawyer for paying off a pornstar through his family business, and booked the reimbursements as “legal expenses” instead of “pornstar payoffs.”

Brilliant minds came over from top law firms to fit those facts into to a clever legal theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carey_R._Dunne. They figured it out, just like the figured out how to make Google’s profits magically all materialize in Ireland. But the underlying conduct remains a politician covering up an affair. That’s the best the legal industry could do after eight years of digging.

Let's back up a bit. Ancestor comments are saying "I wouldn't put it past Trump to take money to bring TikTok back." That's what's being discussed here. I'm not sure why you're on some personal crusade to make Trump seem unjustly persecuted. It's a bit strange, even, since that wasn't even the main contention here.

Yes, that's what's being discussed, and the argument that's being made in this discussion is that Trump has so far apparently never done anything like that before.

I am amazed people are staying so calm and civil in this comment thread.

I can’t speak for everyone, but personally it’s normalized in my Canadian upbringing to exchange this way.

It's called donation, not payroll. All of big tech seems to be doing it.

I think that the message put up by TikTok today is already, at least in part, its own payment. "The bad guys blocked your favourite app, luckily you'll have to wait just one day for President Trump to fix this regrettable mess" is a powerful message to send to more than one hundred million Americans. Stupid as you want, but powerful. Same as for the Gaza ceasefire (which will be ignored as soon as the inauguration is over and focus has moved onto other matters).

you mean the same dude that's currently doing a crypto rug pull based on his presidency ?

Yep, the very same!

They have literally nothing to lose so stunt is relative.

Exactly. It's in their best interest to offer the incumbent a free political win

What? The incumbent is on his way out, and it is the incoming guy that has the opportunity for the win by bringing it back afternoon tomorrow (Jan 20th).

This is eerily similar to the Carter/Regan hostages situation

There's still some cost to shutting down now like this.

Probably nothing. That was their last hope...

I mean, if I was bytedance I would do that free of charge to make the outgoing administration look like muppets :)

Bytedance didn’t get anything. They likely posted this message without Trump’s knowledge to create social pressure on him by setting up an expectation. It’s a manipulation technique, which is exactly why this app needs to go away.

Exactly, Bytedance/Chinese government wants Trump to look bad, if TikTok stays dark. Nevermind that Trump was the one that tried to ban TikTok in the first place. And never mind that everyone from house to senate to Biden to Supreme Court voted to ban TikTok.

And never mind that the majority of users on TikTok are far left woke democrats.

The Supreme Court did not vote to ban TikTok. They voted that Congress had the power to do so.

> ByteDance got from the incoming administration

Why do you assume conspiracy instead of unilateral political maneuvering?

Unilateral political maneuvering is not a thing.

But you repeat yourself

What do you mean voluntarily? The SC upheld the law.

They didnt have to shut down the app.

The law does not disallow Americans from accessing this service. It only disallows Apple and Google from distributing the app on their stores. This shutdown of the service is a publicity stunt.

And it's ironic because this is a perfect example of what the law is intended to prevent -- a Chinese-owned company boosting Trump in front of a hundred million Americans.

If that's not foreign influence, I don't know what is.

Biden could have cut a deal with TikTok instead of this. That would have left the US with a least one major social media not in the pocket of Trump.

They gave bytedance plenty of time to to sell. And TikTok would've not been cheap.

I'm not a fan of the ban, mind you, but it's not like they were ordered to leave the country.

As it looks now Trump will facilitate a deal within 90 days - Biden could have done that and left the US with a much healthier media landscape.

You are free to call Biden more principled but to me it looks like a shot in the foot.

Sounds like the mafia.

I wish CPC could do the same thing to Telsa and Apple, or even to kidnap Tim Cook just like how they kidnapped Meng Wanzhou, gee, that would be thrilling

But the Chinese actually have very stringent law that makes operating there impossible.

The CCP flat out bans most western countries from even operating, and has absolutely kidnapped businesspeople (and normal civilians).

> Sounds like the mafia.

You're taking a decision to protect national interests that safeguards investor's interests, and here you are spinning it with "mafia" nonsense.

Pray tell, how do you address the problem of having a totalitarian regime manipulating and spying on your whole country? Do you try to shut down the operation? Or do you argue they should continue their psyops operations because otherwise it "sounds like the mafia"?

Thank you for using the correct acronym (CPC, Communist Party of China) rather than the incorrect acronym-of-the-colloquial-variant CCP, which seems to be achieving ascendancy in the discourse.

Acronyms are like variable names, we would do better to use the right one and then stick to it.

> Thank you for using the correct acronym (CPC, Communist Party of China) rather than the incorrect acronym-of-the-colloquial-variant CCP, which seems to be achieving ascendancy in the discourse.

Glad you pointed out the details. CPC is the correct official name. If someone insists on using CCP, here's my speculation, it usually means they have been heavily influenced by anti-communist propaganda and narratives from the U.S. government, or they are deliberately using the incorrect name to be derogatory.

funny I just saw something similar in other thread:

> I will use the term Ruzzia and Ruzzians to identify the Zed regime and the Zed patriots, Ruzzian != Russian, Ruzzian = a Zed patriot, a imperialist Russian or Putin fanboy, proud to stick a Zed on his face,body or property

At least he's honest, I do appreciate that

> If someone insists on using CCP, here's my speculation, it usually means they have been heavily influenced by anti-communist propaganda and narratives from the U.S. government, or they are deliberately using the incorrect name to be derogatory.

Do you think there's a meaningful difference between the (official) "Communist Party of China" and the (colloquial) "Chinese Communist Party"?

It seems like if derogation was the goal, you could come up with something more effective than an equivalent translation.

There's a US federal agency called the CPC. Disambiguation could be a reasonable explanation.

there're no such thing like 'colloquial' name as CCP

it's used by the US officials by decades, and it's an old trick used by US intelligences to disturbe informations

like when you search 'CCP' and 'CPC', you'll get totally different results

'CCP' is not the colloquial name, it's the name Americans heard days and days from their government's propaganda

Let's just be honest with each other

I confess I use the name 'Amerika' to expresse certain meanings

I see no reason to believe your version.

In English, adjectives before the noun are the usual form.

Sure, but that's not the correct usage with proper noun acronyms, i.e. ones referring to official names. The official name is the Communist Party of China.

Fair point, but it doesn't point directly toward "intentional derogatory perversion by the US government".

Also keep in mind that the official name is not in English. And what is the standard process for nations to produce "official" foreign-language names for internal subgovernmental organizations, anyway?

Is there an official name in French, or Mandarin, for the Blue Dog Coalition?

The ban is not targeted directly at TikTok but at the app stores, which will have to pay a fine of $5000 per user if they keep the app available in the store.

If that were true then you would be able to log in through a browser, and you cannot.

Because it’s a stunt. TikTok didn’t need to do that.

You can again where I am. Have you checked recently?

They voluntarily took it down, and now brought back up. If it remains gone from the app stores, I imagine they will eventually take it down again.

The text of the law is something you can look up yourself, we don't have to argue about it!

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

> Biden could have cut a deal with TikTok instead of this. That would have left the US with a least one major social media not in the pocket of Trump.

This take is extremely disingenuous.

TikTok is a espionage and propaganda vector currently controlled by China's ruling regime. The only decision at this point is whether China continues to operate their propaganda and intelligence operation with free reign within the US. The only question at this point is whether Trump is in the pocket of the CCP.

TikTok's propaganda is clearly targeting Trump. I mean, ByteDance rejected a sale and instructed TikTok to unitalerally turn the lights off and post messages on how Trump was their savior. This is extremely transparent. There is nothing Biden could do to counter this.

What makes your take extremely disingenuous is the fact that you are arguing that Biden should fold to the CCP's pressure to continue their propaganda and intelligence campaign within the US, and you're trying to frame this somehow as keeping a major social not in the pocket of Trump. As if Trump is the issue.

What are you referring to? The majority of news media are left leaning.

That's simply untrue and has been for a long time. Between Sinclair, Fox, and Twitter, more Americans consume far right media than left leaning media. Reality way have a well known liberal bias, but the American news media does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_oper...

https://deadline.com/2024/12/cable-news-ratings-2024-fox-new...

>Reality way have a well known liberal bias

This was unnecessary and undermines your otherwise valid point.

> That's simply untrue and has been for a long time. Between Sinclair, Fox, and Twitter, more Americans consume far right media than left leaning media.

Pedantic, but that's not the same thing as the parent claim.

Consumers consuming more from one end does not mean that there isn't more of the other.

Are people really still claiming this?

Epstein friend Donald Trump is a rapist, felon, charity-stealing serial liar with a God complex. He is an undeniably stupid man who has a hilarious blindness to his own idiocy. His first term was one disaster after another. His second is likely to end the American Empire: If it doesn't lead to the dissolution of the Union, it will destroy America economically and geopolitically. The era of China's dominance begins tomorrow.

The majority of news media, including supposedly "Liberal" venues like the NYT, have been sane washing this corrupt trashman for the years. That he got the nomination and then won the election was entirely courtesy of a bought and paid for media. There is literally no low that is even really notable any more -- oh look, the felon conman launched a new shitcoin crypto to extract billions more from the presidency...eh, whatever -- yet any misstep by his opponents received nonstop coverage.

The US is toast. Short of a literal armed revolution or armies of Luigis, your country is done. It has been overthrown by the stupid who are being levered by the oligarchs.

And just to be clear, US politics has been astonishingly corrupt for decades. We all knew it. This is the end result. It's the Stage 4 cancer that is the end of the line for the US political system. It was an inevitable idiocracy.

This is bizarre.. Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ?

Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?

My understanding is that the law doesn’t ban TikTok. The law gives the president the power to ban TikTok. So the president can elect not to use said power.

The law quite clearly states bytedance aka tiktok so yea tiktok is 100% banned and the penalty is massive fines that would essentially bankrupt them.

The law quite clearly says it is the president's call. It is a new presidential power.

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

It is the President’s call for any _additional_ applications. It is not his call for TikTok or any other ByteDance applications.

if the law explicitly says bytedance and there is no way for bytedance to avoid it then its a bill of attainder and unconstitutional. presumably, they have worded the law in a way that avoids this for example by letting the president remove bytedance for being in violation if he considers them no longer in violation.

> Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ?

No, but they can direct the federal government to deprioritize enforcement.

No, he can't. Congress would have to revoke it. But it has bipartison support. So its just more of the same charade BS that he rants on about. Its all nonsense from him. It will be worse this time around bc he is not all there (even moreso than 2016). The next 4 yrs are going to be quite comical. He can't even control his bowels and he has to wear diapers to stop leaking.

I'm no fan of trump, but the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform.

> The Act exempts a foreign adversary controlled applica- tion from the prohibitions if the application undergoes a “qualified divestiture.” §2(c)(1). A “qualified divestiture” is one that the President determines will result in the appli- cation “no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” §2(g)(6)(A).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

> the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform.

This feels like a fast track path to an oligarch system ? Pay enough and get your exception..

What kinda system is it currently?

A Democratic Republic

Not since a year or two after Citizens United.

Also, in case you didn't notice, the world's richest man just about bought the presidential election by spending over a quarter billion dollars.

As of 2024, a representative strong-executive democracy with a large authoritarian leaning and an unhealthy obsession with oligarch-worship.

In 2028, who knows. The current president told his supporters that in four years, they won't need to vote anymore, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

Concentrating power in the hands of the few is certainly a good way to get an oligarchy, which is what the "checks and balances" system of the US government is supposed to prevent. It's strange to see so many people wanting the president to have more authority and power, but I guess it's a response to Congress's reputation of being dysfunctional and refusing to compromise.

Carry on with that:

> The President must further determine that the divestiture “precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the United States operations of the [application] and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.”

The content recommendation algorithm is TikTok. It is developed in China by Chinese engineers. There is no lawful way for TikTok to operate under this law, and the SC has completely failed by not considering this. It's a really lazy judgement.

Probably the outcome Congress was hoping for is that it gets sold to a US buyer who would operate TikTok with the technology under license, and everyone would just pretend that now it's operated by a US interest despite that being impossible. Like sure, they would be running the servers, but the code would largely still be written in China!

Edit: Actually it would be kind of worse, because thinking about it TikTok has a lot of engineers outside China now, so how would it even work? Would they fork the code and then that would be it? It's such a crazy proposition.

Real time content recommendation algorithm can be rebuilt from scratch relatively quickly (weeks). At the beginning it won't be as effective as current TikTok algorithm so iterations will be required but frankly treating algo like something that can only be done by Chinese engineers is silly.

When TikTok developed recommendations it was novel and on the frontier but now how it's done is much better understood and with GPUs availability can be implemented by any good ML team. Similar to Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and other, the secret sauce is content and users, not algorithm.

It was explicitly written in this law specifically that the president can unilaterally decide that an affected platform has done enough to no longer qualify for the ban.

America is looking more and more like a fascist dictatorship.

Managed democracy.

Because a separate legislative power decided to give the President certain powers?

That’s the opposite of fascist.

That's exactly how Hitler came to power. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

No it's not.

The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.

Only superficially: the dictator cannot be subjected to any judicial control, but the dictator’s party has a two-thirds majority on the top rung of the judicial system.

When you give the president additional power, the legislative loses some of its own power. The Enabling Act is just the most extreme example.

The President doesn't have additional powers in the Tiktok example.

The President has always been able to veto laws. Biden could have vetoed the bill if he wanted.

And a Congress that passes a bill that says the President has a say in it's execution isn't odd either. The administrative body always has powers of execution.

And Congress is free to pass a law to reverse the law and make Tiktok legal if they want.

Fair enough.

It's only fascism when the guy has a mustache

They are supposed to be separate. The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate".

You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.

> The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate".

I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense.

If money had such a large influences then why did a Presidential candidate who spent about half the other candidate win?

And then you claim the President will control the money, but the President doesn't control campaign funds. They don't even control government spending, Congress does.

> You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.

Ok, this makes more sense.

But the issue you raise isn't unique to the US system. It's not even unique to politics. Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors".

If you criticism is just human behavior, then I agree. But not much you can do to solve that.

Are you seriously asking why the guy who owns a social media platform and is heavily endorsed by another only needed to spend half of the others "campaign finance" budget? Not to mention all the other money and propaganda that's off the books.

> If money had such a large influences then why did a Presidential candidate who spent about half the other candidate win?

Because there was more enthusiasm for the politics and/or they spent it better? But ask yourself if someone with even more support for policy but $0 could have won. And if not, why.

> Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors".

Economic favors we usually call "corruption".

When I look around the planet I find few places (among western liberal democracies) that have the same sickness with money in politics.

If you look at "democratic health" as e.g. "how many in a parliament were born to (very) rich parents", it feels like there is room for improvement.

it’s about to start looking significantly less fascist if Trump admin can pull off their various goals and shake off some of the entrenched regulatory capture

Views centered on revolutionary nationalism. Using judicial means to remove opposition and replace holders of governmental positions with followers. Commanding paramilitary forces into an assault at the capital. Consolidation of power to close allies and financial supporters. Alienation of democratic powers. Foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation’s possessions.

The parallels to Mussolini are not nonexistent.

would love to see some citations on these… you work for the weather channel severe weather department by chance?

America is a DeepState autocratic core with a veneer of Democracy.

No it wasn't. The law specifically states that the president can only enact an extension in the event that TikTok is credibly attempting to negotiate a sale. They are not doing that, hence an extension will not happen.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759336

I don't see it in the law. [0]

If you mean section 2.1.a.2.a, it just allows the president to add additional apps to the ban list, not to lift TikTok, which is "hardcoded" into the law.

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

> Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?

But... But that would apply to Meta and Twitter as well Ö

I mean if a president is allowed to pardon a criminal then I guess this is nothing compared to it

https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-tiktok...

Mitch Hedberg:

My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?

I had to think about this. It’s actually your own skin providing the frictional force that holds your pants up!

it's your butt

It will return, and very soon. 100% sure. They just need to turn it into something they can control through a local "broker" while maintaining some compatibility with the platform; 170 million users willing to be indoctrinated by government propaganda are hard to ignore.

It won't be anywhere near as popular as it was. The average user has the app "TikTok" and that's as far as they will ever go to get access.

The name will remain the same; most users probably won't even notice any difference.

It will be obvious when the feed will change and be alliged with the other actors.

Gee I wonder if el presidente will have personal editorial access...

Yeah, he's gonna save it by forcing them to sell it to X, Meta or to Truth Social.

To save you a click, the message displayed on TikTok reads:

- -

"Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now.

"A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.

"We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"

- -

That last paragraph is 100% the language of authoritarian regimes.

"We are fortunate to have the Leader's personal attention!" — and he hasn't even taken office yet. Incredible.

Are they wrong? Tiktok being available again does depend on Trump and Trump alone.

It sounds like an authoritarian regime because it is one.

True, yet it’s still a jolt to see it laid so bare.

Public communications by corporations were like this in 1930s Germany and Italy, and more recently in 2020s Russia.

Trump's change of heart is because he found Tiktok valuable to his election campaign.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-wo...

> "I think we're going to have to start thinking because, you know, we did go on TikTok, and we had a great response with billions of views, billions and billions of views," Trump told the crowd at AmericaFest, an annual gathering organized by conservative group Turning Point. > > "They brought me a chart, and it was a record, and it was so beautiful to see, and as I looked at it, I said, 'Maybe we gotta keep this sucker around for a little while'," he said.

He received $100 million from Jeff Yass, the largest American investor in TIkTok. That did the trick.

Do you have a source for the $100 million? But yeah, Jeff Yass might indeed play a big role in Trumps sudden shift: https://www.fastcompany.com/91058467/who-is-jeff-yass-billio...

Why are you asking for citation? Shouldn’t the person making the claim provide the evidence, instantly remove account if named man said “I take bribes.” So I believe he took a bribe. Why would you believe otherwise?

I was googling for $100m and didn't find it but there was some interesting other stuff:

>So far, Yass has contributed $46 million to conservative causes and PACs, but nothing to Trump directly. If Trump wins Yass over, it could open the floodgates to a torrent of cash. (Mar 24, Vanity Fair)

>If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” Trump posted to Truth Social on March 7. It was a stunning policy reversal, in no small part because Trump had attempted an earlier TikTok ban himself.

>Susquehanna’s roughly 15% stake in the privately held ByteDance is worth some $40 billion (also mar 24)

So it seems quite plausible even if they haven't published details.

I'm curious how this all will play out now that Meta has sucked up to Trump.

It'll make a good Netflix drama one day.

This is misinformation. There is no evidence that he gave $100 million.

Only Trump can save TikTok from what Trump started[0]?

It couldn't be because Jeffrey Yass has spent some dozens up to hundreds of millions US$ in GOP donations, could it? [1]

It really feels like the USA is circling the drain faster and faster these days...

[0] https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/03/18/billion...

Biden had plenty of time in his presidency to intervene and stop the ban that Trump started.

Instead he signed it into law without question.

I’ve seen other versions of this like https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1i4nm32/rip... - none of which mention Trump. I do wonder if this version (mentioning Trump) is real - the domain from the link is Foxnews…

This is what it currently says for me on the homepage when I view it:

    Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now
    
    A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
    
    We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
   
    In the meantime, you can still log in to download your data.

It also says it (at the time of this writing) on: https://archive.ph/v0C6c

I was using the app throughout

First, there was a generic message:

> We regret that a U.S. law banning TikTok will take effect on January 19 and force us to make our services temporarily unavailable.

> We're working to restore our service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned.

Exactly an hour later, it changed to:

> A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.

> We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!

> If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing

Most likely, the rationale will be similar to Huawei and Kaspersky.

Not based on actual historical misbehaviour, but rather the amount of power you’re allowing their respective governments to have over US citizens / infrastructure.

There are very few “from first principals” thinkers in the world, especially amongst TikTok’s younger audience. Most people take their beliefs from others, in the same way a llm’s output reflects its training data. If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume, then they can influence the narrative of the country.

China has long banned US social media for likely the same reason.

Therefore, this power to influence younger generations should be restricted to US government and US big tech Corporation. They know what is best for them.

Nothing in your comment changes this:

"If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume that, then they can influence the narrative of the country."

Anyone can influence those narratives. Owning the system just makes it more efficient than astroturfing, puppeteering and trolling.

Agreed.

But owning the platform makes influence far, far more efficient and that is why we should not allow our adversaries to do so.

And China propaganda is so powerful that US propaganda cannot counter this, even within US borders, following rules chosen by their own country, US propaganda is losing.

What makes Chinese propaganda so powerful, even in the form of silly 30 seconds dancing? Or perhaps the real problem is not this? But the existance of a single non western source of consent manufacturing?

You are really arguing that US should improve on its propaganda game?

wtf

How about as little propaganda as possible?

Because it will not happen. And cannot be enforced.

No, im not arguing this because US already uses more propaganda than China. I was asking why americans are so afraid that chinese propaganda will be so more powerful than the Inês that they already have.

It got enforced today.

How? US propaganda, propaganda from big techs from US oligopolies will continue unchallenged and strenghtned, as they blocked a source that they apparently do not control.

Strange take. Some kind of philosophical purity says that we should allow foreign adversaries to influence domestic audiences because we should be able to counter that influence with out own?

It’s like saying you should allow someone to punch you because you “should” be able to punch yourself harder.

Consider how this spat looks from the perspective of a European.

The US controls Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp.

Owner of Twitter has office space in the white house, and is calling for the overthrow of elected European governments and deliberately spreading misinformation.

Then the US sees one non-american-owned social media network and decides it's got to be banned.

Perhaps those Europeans should consider whether they want foreigners influencing domestic audiences?

>The US controls Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp.

Not in the way that the CCP controls ByteDance. ByteDance cannot win a lawsuit against the Chinese government.

China, Russia and Iran are designated adversaries and will be treated as such.

And I think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp should be also be far more regulated.

Musk won't be in the White House for long.

Yes, they should.

The mistake here is seeing the US action as a universal moral statement and therefore hypocritical.

The US action was simply pragmatic. There is no claim of universality or morality.

I very much agree other countries should also look at US hegemony through a pragmatic lens: is this a net harm? It’s kind of funny that you raise it as a gotcha.

So, letting divergent opinions from other countries and from different entities is like being punched? You know that most world uses social media from foreign entities, right? Curious how until few years ago, when there were no relevant competitors outside US, the dominant discourse was that only tyranical countries would do this.

Why do you trust that an app based in China would actually comply with American rules? Facebook voluntarily disclosed that misinformation was spread on their platform. They cooperated with the DOJ to connect this misinformation campaign to thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian nationals. Would you expect the same cooperation from TikTok?

> What makes Chinese propaganda so powerful, even in the form of silly 30 seconds dancing?

TikTok is as much about silly 30 seconds dancing as Twitter was about posting 144 character messages or a prime time news program is about 2 minute clips with a voiceover.

The way you fail to even frame the problem suggests you either are oblivious about the problem or you're doing your best to avoid discussing it.

The West does not have to tolerate the intolerant. When China opens its Internet to the world like it always should have, they can continue to play their little CCP “China good, Collective West bad” game in the West.

To really be fair, we should lock our Internet from China for 30 years and let the Chinese people have the full wide un-CCP-censored Western consent Internet you’re talking about. We can start with old favorite topics like T-square, Winnie the Pooh, that COVID doctor the CCP suppressed and then martyred.

Then we can sit down and have a frank discussion on what the terms of Internet use should be.

Until then, China should be grateful their State enterprises were allowed in at all.

But to answer your question, US propaganda isn’t countering because it just doesn’t exist. We have a free press. It can criticize the government, and does it every single day. The U.S. doesn’t do military parades, and its self marketing sucks because it’s not an imperative, unlike China.

Furthermore, China clearly thinks propaganda and intense censorship is the way to go. What else can explain the efforts to A. Block Winnie the Pooh B. Block the sale of TikTok? Profit clearly isn’t the motive now, which is very suspicious of such a large ostensibly for profit company.

The fact that the consideration to sell it to Trump/Musk in particular is floating around points to the political value of TikTok in the first place. Bribe the incoming admin, extract some favor in return, I.E. back down on Taiwan or relieve semiconductor tariffs.

It’s all obvious.

Sure, US propaganda do not exist. Not in Hollywood. Not in games. Not in social media and news sources. Makes one wonder then how people got so propagandized.

This is an excellent example of a Straw Man argument.

"If the US controls the food system that decides what content people consume, then they can kill an entire country."

Hysteria or ban McDonald's/Pepsi/Coke/Subway/etc?

I think that this is an example of the Weak Analogy Fallacy.

It might come off as a "weak analogy" because it sounds weak to you ... to make the point that there are valid grounds (the epidemic of obesity & diabetes) for Xenophobic Asians to think addictive Coke / McDonald's are part of some sinister plot by the Americans to impoverish them. And that line of reasoning is ludicrous, or "weak" as you put it because it is (unless we are Xenophobic ourselves, then it isn't)!

If you desire a strong analogy, do Hollywood, YouTube, Netflix etc, which are banned by the other side citing similar reasons to TikTok, I am sure. But the other side is totally authoritarian and we aren't, right?

If only we trusted in people to make their own decisions, but that's crazy talk.

Its widely known at this point that TikTok is a Chinese owned business and that the CCP has a history if forcibly influencing companies to do their bidding. If people still want to use TikTok I don't see what the real problem is.

Yeah, I totally expect a 14 y.o. girl who joins TikTok to check trendy dance move to be aware of dangers of CCP propaganda.

What percentage of population understands that propaganda can be subtle? Sneak some ragebait here and there to make it look like situation is worse than it is, exaggerate, radicalize people...

I had a CS grad student very confidently tell me that TikTok was not owned by a Chinese company.

a Chinese company, yes, but backed by some of the major investment funds in the west, the Chinese own 20%, Chinese government is under 1%.

This seems a bit like splitting hairs.

There is quite a bit of naivete regarding how the Chinese government controls Chinese companies.

It is very different from the US.

> There is quite a bit of naivete regarding how the Chinese government controls Chinese companies.

I happen to know how China works, have you got some example to present?

> It is very different from the US.

Actually, not really.

Can Facebook keep alive their "fact checking" program, now that Trump is president and not Biden, whose administration ordered it, probably more against Trump himself, than any other adversary of the USA?

Are Vanguard and BlackRock free to invest in whatever company they want?

For example: why are Vanguard and BlackRock backing Unicredit to buy Commerzbank, one of the few European banks not owned or heavily funded by American funds?

A Chinese company cannot take the CCP to court and win. There is no separation of powers in China. There is no constitutional protection held on place by a group outside the ruling party.

China has a faux free capitalist society. Chinese companies are the way they are because the government lets them be that way, not because they have the right to be that way.

> A Chinese company cannot take the CCP to court and win. There is no separation of powers in China

Why should a company take the CCP to court though?

They are in business together and have grown immensely in the past 30 years.

> There is no constitutional protection held on place by a group outside the ruling party

Where is that protection in the US though?

Call them parties, a faux bi-headed system instead of an honest one-headed one, and you get the same outcome.

> China has a faux free capitalist society

They never wanted US capitalism though, so it's business as intended.

> Chinese companies are the way they are

because the people of China like them like that.

Believe me, they do not want to be like you. The opposite is true in fact.

>Why should a company take the CCP to court though?

Someone's internet is monitored...

> Someone's internet is monitored...

Yeah! and it's 99% the NSA on this side of the World.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spie...

Has someone brought the US to court for that?

And why not?

US courts don't have jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries.

> US courts don't have jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries

Apparently, only when it pleases them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/01/12/mohammad-abe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

> a Chinese company, yes, but backed by some of the major investment funds in the west, the Chinese own 20%, Chinese government is under 1%.

ByteDance not only blocked the sale of TikTok to a US company but also TikTok unilaterally decided to shut down operations in the US to strongarm the US government to prevent it's sale.

If the CCP actually had no control over TikTok and at most they only held a residual non-controlling position, then how do you explain the scorched earth strategy that is only aligned with the CCP's strategy and throws all other shareholders under the bus?

The Chinese government has a majority of the voting stock.

More importantly, the company based in China, and the engineers working on it's recommendation system are based in China, and both are subject to the laws of China.

From a national security perspective, it's controlled by the Chinese government.

Well they can believe that if they want, it won't hurt anyone. For better or worse, free speech means anyone can say what they want and free thought in general means people can happily be wrong about a fact that seems very easy to check.

This sounds like a libertarian idea of defense: we don't need an army, everyone can just buy a gun.

The idea that people can just choose to resist a foreign propaganda machine is just as comical.

America is handing this opportunity on a platter by practically outlawing child independence.

A kid should be out exploring on their own, shooting squirrels, riding their bike to the next town, bailing hay for cash at the farm at the edge of town. I didn't become a staunch supporter of most American classical liberal principles because an app told me to, it's because it's how I lived when I grew up. If you shut me in or chained me to a parent all day, well maybe you grow up with whatever tiktok tells you since you see it as the only way to stretch your legs.

Well, it sounds like you may have grown up in the country. Personally i think it's a bad idea for children to have guns in densely populated cities, searching for small animals to kill in the one park within "dangerous but still walking" distance. Regardless of what you believe or how you grew up, it's simply impossible to replicate that kind of freedom and safety for a large majority of American children.

Our cities are run by cars, children are notoriously bad at sensing them. I'm sure there's things that could be done but nothing, nothing can give a kid in Brooklyn the opportunity to "bail hay at the farm on the edge of town".

The big city equivalent is closer to a bus pass, $5 for a hot dog, and see you at dusk. The danger of dodging cars arguably is less than being locked in with TikTok. Maybe kids hawk chicharones in the city instead of bailing hay, obviously it won't be a direct translation.

That sounds like a reasonable argument to create an age limit for social media.

It also sounds like an argument for parents to step in - every child is different and a parent should be doing the parenting rather than Congress and the White House.

Adults are also quite susceptible to propaganda.

Sure, I'm not arguing that propaganda is ineffective. I'm arguing that people should at least have access to the facts and be allowed to make their own decisions. In this case the important facts are simply that TikTok is a Chinese app and the CCP almost certainly influences them.

When it comes to children that is a different story, but the debate should be whether we enforce an age limit on social media. There is at least precedent (for better or worse) for an age limit on things we think children aren't ready or able to consume.

It's widely known by Hacker News audience. A quick poll of 16 to 22 year old nephews, nieces and their friends around me is met with blank, completely uncaring faces.

(Not saying one way or another about banning the app, but discussion should start from a realistic assessment)

And these are mostly the same children given the right to vote a few decades ago. (I was one of them.) This has always saddened me.

If it isn't well known that's a great reason for the government to focus on making that clear. Banning the app really doesn't help anyone long term, and giving the president even more power is always a risky game.

Propaganda works even if you know. Otherwise we wouldn't have the advertisement industry we have.

You can't effectively regulate away propaganda though, otherwise we wouldn't have the advertising industry we have.

Oh i can dream about a world without the advertising industry we have. It honestly seems to me that targeted advertising is the root of so many evils

The fact that we allow advertisement is a choice. Some countries choose to forbid advertisement for cigarettes, for example.

And yes, there is big difference between the US advertisement industry, which is at least in principle regulated by the US legal/government system and thus, US citizens, vs. the essentially unregulated propaganda-machine that is Tik Tok.

This is not to say that a ban is the only option here. But I am not convinced that other control options are effective, or less of a danger.

> This is not to say that a ban is the only option here. But I am not convinced that other control options are effective, or less of a danger.

We're definitely in agreement here, there are other options and all have their pros and cons.

The major risk I see with the TikTok ban is that it wasn't actually a TikTok ban, it gave the president new powers to unilaterally ban services in certain situations.

As far as TikTok goes the ban may be more effective. At a minimum I wish the law was specific to them though, and I can't support it simply for the new executive powers created.

It's the same with the US, haven't you seen how some topics were encouraged with the Biden administration and supported by our Californian "neutral" friends in LLMs and medias ? and suddenly there is Trump, and they all start to switch sides ?

It's the direct effect of political pressure.

You nicer you behave to the government, the more carrots you get.

> If only we trusted in people to make their own decisions, but that's crazy talk.

You're talking about people who say Haitians are eating pets and having the CCP dictate what content you consume is preferable than not having the CCP dictate what content you consume. Make it make sense.

Yes, plenty of people say crazy things. So what? If we want to uphold free speech we have to take the good with the bad. If we don't, Congress can cross the aisle and write a new amendment.

I don't want the CCP, or any government, dictating what I see. Thankfully they really can't. They can dictate what is online on various sites and apps, but they can't dictate what I consume. I've never used TikTok personally, the CCP hasn't dictated anything to me at least on that front because I can choose what I look at.

US government is literally accountable to US citizens. If it is not, you have a bigger problem.

We do have a giant problem with the policymaking community being very narrow, but the only way to solve it is by having communication platforms that aren't being influenced by that same community.

When I say narrow, I mean narrow. The toppling of the Guatemalan liberal democracy and subsequent replacement by a dictator was performed at the behest of a handful of people who wanted to and did retire to a sinecure at United Fruit, and without the full knowledge of the president.

Aspirationally yes. In practice US can't even rid itself of civil forfeiture or federal weed laws despite consistent majority against them. We can't get rid of overbearing housing regulations despite it destroying our youth. Hell the democratic party presidential candidate wasn't even chosen in a primary, just installed in without a public vote to ensure viability, handing a default.

Hasn't been for a while now. Our government is only held to account by the Oligarchs that own our politicians.

And somehow a majority votes for the candidate that puts an oligarch in power of an 'unofficial' position/department. It was clearly vote for people with a lot of money.

Something about The government you elect is the government you deserve.?

The votes are following the propaganda, and Trump won the public opinion war. Democrats have been slow to learn this lesson and get their messaging and public relations under control.

"Vote for people with a lot of money" describes both parties for I don't even know how long. It's obscenely disingenuous to pretend that's new. Both parties have been bankrolled by corporate interests for longer than I've been alive for.

The Elon thing is way more brazen, yes. I also think many people would rather have than instead of two dozen faceless lobbyists sitting behind superPACs, at least you can point to the guy when he pushes for policy. If it was the norm that companies were completely public about showing up to influence politics that might make a better world, really.

Not a fan of the whole thing mind you, but if it's going to go down, I'm not sure this is actually worse.

Both parties have been bankrolled by corporate interests for longer than I've been alive for.

Sure, but this is quite a different scale. Apparently the net worth of Trumps (official) cabinet, so excluding Musk, is 7 billion. For comparison, the net worth of Biden's cabinet was 118 million dollar.

Source: https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/amerikaanse-ambtenaren-...

(Sorry for the Dutch source, searching the numbers gives English sources as well.)

The Elon thing is way more brazen, yes. I also think many people would rather have than instead of two dozen faceless lobbyists sitting behind superPACs,

The super PACs will continue to exist as well. I am pretty sure this will give some of the PACs only more influence/power.

at least you can point to the guy when he pushes for policy

In the same way you can point to the guy when he tries to interrupts peaceful transition?

Which brings me back me to my original point, the majority of Americans voted for a crook (interrupting peaceful transition amongst other things) and oligarchs. We'll see where it ends.

They're a puppet for lobbies and businesses.

U.S. government isn't perfect, therefore we should let some other government just run wild in our country. I follow your logic.

The propaganda has worked perfectly.

In the long run it's better that both China and US have deep tentacles wrapped around each other. The more culture and dependencies merge and intertwine the more cooperation looks attractive over war.

Better for everyone but american labor, you mean.

I think American labor is not so infantile they need paternal oversight over what apps they download, for one.

I see, you prefer jobs outsourced to a deeply intertwined china.

Billionaires chose to move our manufacturing overseas so they could make more money. The working class didn't stop them when we had the chance.

At the cost of China controlling the recommendation system that decides what content US people consume?

The cost of free speech, including commercial or propaganda, is people get manipulated by it. Some including myself argue is you end up with even more nefarious control when censored, rather than having the option of which if any propaganda apps you want to consume.

There are some controls like certain pornography, but if these exist they should apply uniformly, not based on whether we like the person publishing it.

I am concerned that our elections could be and have been distorted by our adversaries using TikToc and other platforms.

I am not OK with that.

You are basically saying American adults are impressionable children hence cannot be trusted to participate in elections held by US electoral institutions.

Americans are humans and all humans are susceptible to advertising/propaganda

this is the cost of free speech. it has to be, or free speech is meaningless. yes speech influences people.

so we ban all advertising/“propaganda”? who gets to decide what is or isn’t propaganda if we gonna ban it?

> who gets to decide what is or isn’t propaganda if we gonna ban it?

in a representative republic that would ideally be the elected representatives

I am saying that but would prefer to state it this way:

Individuals are not equipped to recognized and counter the effects of highly sophisticated influence operations run by adversaries with enormous resources.

And you are basically saying that despite decades of focused high-stakes research into the matter, propaganda doesn't work at all on the masses, and that algorithmic manipulation of people is simply impossible? How could anyone take that idea seriously.. global advertising spend is approaching like a trillion dollars every year.

Why not call for the dismantling of the global advertising networks in the US rather than Tiktok since you think it is a giant propaganda machine?

Saying a foreign nation has the capability to brainwash your citizens into making a vote is propaganda by itself. It's not only cheap and imbecilic, it's a waste of everybody's time.

>Why not call for the dismantling of the global advertising networks in the US

Yes, we should do this also.

It’s not cheap, that’s the point.. ads as an industry moves more money every year than the pentagon. That’s a lot of people betting that algorithmic influence campaigns work. Are you saying everyone is wrong about this but you, or is your position is that influence campaigns work for brands but not for nation states? Or nation states would not try? Or what?

I'm concerned about this, too, but this law actually gives the nation's most powerful adversaries even more power by eliminating their competition.

Are you referring to Russia and Iran?

No, primarily Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and other big tech execs to a lesser extent.

Thank you for clarifying - I disagree with your point.

China is far, far more powerful than Zuck or Musk.

China can't directly influence US policy, and they mostly don't have any interest in doing so outside how it influences our trade relations. Sure, it's bad if they're doing that. But Musk, Zuckerberg, and the rest of the ultra-wealthy are directly creating US policy, both by serving in unelected advisory positions and by outright buying US politicians. Just like China, they are not working for America's interests, they are working for their own interests. They are removing hard-won safeguards for their employees, their customers, and Americans in general; and they are removing accountability for themselves so they can exercise that power over the people who live in the US with impunity.

US billionaires are far more dangerous to US residents than China is, and this law gives them even more influence than they already had by removing the only significant competitor that was not owned by a US billionaire. If this law had impacted all social media equally, I would be a huge advocate. But as it is, it's just another handout to the US's richest and most influential people. It's a bad law, and will make life worse for the people who live in the US.

>If this law had impacted all social media equally, I would be a huge advocate.

I would as well and it is unfortunate that we haven't/can't pass such a law. Hopefully someday we can.

I support the TikTok ban in the meantime.

The US could have just built a regulator and laws like we have for alcohol and drugs. It's not difficult. But banning the creepy Chinese thing is far easier.

It is very difficult - social media giants have very powerful lobbies.

the same argument was about Russia and west relationship with it in the last 20 years, look what we have now

Russia is far less a threat to us in the last 20 or 30 years than it was the 20 or 30 before that.

> China has long banned US social media for likely the same reason.

Sure, but most other countries haven't. Perhaps they should learn from these developments and start considering their options.

Most geopolitical rivals already blocked US social media - Russia, Iran, China. Brazil blocked and forced X to censor opposition Brazilian politicians. It's already happening.

EU/NATO members can't outright block US social media for obvious reasons (military protection is not free). They try to do sneaky things to control social media with DSA, etc.

India/Indonesia and a few other countries are already debating banning foreign social media companies. India was the first to ban TikTok (for the same reason that US is banning TikTok now). US and India are not really rivals and US can retaliate against India if US companies are blocked so math is that it's not worth it to block for now but it can change in future.

Most other countries are not capable/do not have economy and critical number of people to have viable clone of social media. They block social media from time to time during elections, etc.

The problem may not even be that China can control these narratives as much, but just that they (US as in the government/state institution) can't in the first place. Eg there had been complains about pro-palestine narratives dominating tictoc, even if there was no actual evidence this was manipulated (and I doubt it was). This is why i think that this is a case where the interests of the american people may not necessarily align with the "national" interests of wanting to ban tictoc (while the other cases are more about basic infrastructure or access to that), though i think eventually it will not matter much (if tictoc stays the grip for the US part of it by the US government is probably gonna be firmer).

This also can explain bytedance's approach of support and reassurance towards the incoming administration. I bet they care more about their company and not having to choose between two loss scenarios than about politics/international relations, just like most of big corporations in the world.

Some weapons are "NOBUS" (nobody but us). Imho you nailed it. When in Facebook and Twitter the content was manipulated, the US government did not complain, as they were (again, imho) manipulating the content (e.g. Hunter Biden laptop)(don't involve me in the politics, I don't have a care in the world on the subject, I merely find this very Stasi-ist that unnamed, faceless, unelected people lurking in the shadows, wearing black uniforms and black hoods, control what civilians are 'allowed' to watch).

Since TikTok became massive, US gov & agencies lost that oligopoly/monopoly and now China (or any other country for that matter) could define the narrative, form and destroy opinions.

Simple Porter's Five Forces model of analysis. People despised censorship (I will not debate whether this 'content moderation' and/or 'censorship' was good or bad). The "New Entrants" took over. And since it is clear that TikTok cannot be defeated in the foreseeable future, and it cannot be purchased, then it must die.

(q.e.d.)

This is 100% what it is. The establishment types are upset that they can’t just lean on a handful of major media organizations anymore to maintain a uniform narrative (e.g. Iraq having WMDs).

Isn't it funny how our "freedom of speech" is situationally optional?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with a privately owned platform controlled by a communist country.

You are trusting your “freedom of speech” to an entity controlled by a government which blocks US companies from penetrating the great firewall? Try googling tank man in China…you can’t because google is blocked and tank man is prohibited content.

> The establishment types are upset that they can’t just lean on a handful of major media organizations to maintain a uniform narrative (e.g. Iraq having WMDs).

This is obviously false.

Go check TikTok to see what shows up in searches for Tiananmen square or Uighur genocide, or even anyone of the many small catastrophes that go against the CCP's narrative.

You're claiming that consuming propaganda from a totalitarian regime that actively engages against your security, stability, and best interests is somehow better than consuming hypothetical propaganda from your own democratically elected government. Make it make sense.

Americans have no reason to care what happened in Tiananmen Square. That’s Chinese domestic politics. But whether Iraq actually had WMDs does affect Americans, as the people who financed that war based on the failures of the U.S. government.

Foreign propaganda is much less dangerous than domestic propaganda because domestic propaganda is more likely to relate to issues that actually matter to citizens.

> Americans have no reason to care what happened in Tiananmen Square.

It's not about what you care or don't care. It's about using China's social media service to discuss the very topics that China wants to censor. Again, go to TikTok or whatever alternative service provided by China and try to refer to the Tiananmen massacre or Uighur genocide. See what your paragons of free speech treat that.

> This is why i think that this is a case where the interests of the american people may not necessarily align with the "national" interests of wanting to ban tictoc

Your home country at least has some incentive to work towards your interest. No matter how evil they are because they have to pay the consequences of these actions. Even in autocratic China, for example, anti-lockdown censorship during Covid in China eventually caused even more resentment against the CCP.

On the other hand, look at examples of Russian election interference in 2016 [1]. One of the posts is "Satan: If I win Clinton wins. Jesus: Not if I can help it. Press like to help Jesus win." The entire goal is to get Americans to distrust and hate each other. Nobody in America has anything to gain from posting this, but China and Russia have nothing but to gain from a more fractured America. We only found out about this because Facebook cooperated with American intelligence to find this foreign propaganda. At best, you can't expect the same cooperation from TikTok they are accountable to the CCP. At worst, TikTok would actively be working with China to disguise this propaganda as genuine content.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...

> Your home country at least has some incentive to work towards your interest

It's the opposite: if they can block any alternative to the "hive mind" they can easily pursue any interest they like and make you believe that they align with your interests. And if you keep having doubts, they can easily label you as a dissident or a foreign agent, because no one will take your side, mostly for lack of tools and platforms to expose fabricated evidence.

This is a nice narrative, but has not been consistent with how counter-disinformation has been applied in the contemporary US. It matters less what you say than who is making you say this. For example the founders of Tenet Media were indicted for allegedly conspiring with Russia. Those featured on the channel, such as Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, received millions of dollars from Russia sources for spreading narratives that happened to align exactly with Russian propaganda. This should have raised major red flags as their videos typically received modest viewership (in the order of 10k). The DOJ had every opportunity to indict them as well. However, because it's unlikely that it could be proven that they were knowingly conspiring with Russia, so they were free to go.

> because it's unlikely that it could be proven that they were knowingly conspiring with Russia

it's called innocent until prove guilty for a reason, it's the system working as intended.

And the US have exploited it too and are still doing it.

As an example, read the transcript of Victoria Nuland conversation about the future of Ukraine during the time President was someone NATO disliked for not being anti Russian enough.

Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, *Fuck the EU*.

Did Nuland pay for saying it? Of course not. On the contrary, she was awesomely compensated for her work.

> it's called innocent until prove guilty for a reason, it's the system working as intended.

That principle applies to laws, in order to minimize the chance of abuse when investigating criminal and civil charges.

This is not the same. This is about national security, and specifically enforcing national security policies. You do not need presumption of innocence to determine if you should embargo a country, expell a diplomat, and ban a suspicious supplier from your critical infrastructure.

> You do not need presumption of innocence to determine if you should embargo a country

Are you saying that US decision makers are the ones to blame here?

> and ban a suspicious supplier from your critical infrastructure.

I don't think China controls through tik tok what country the US should or should not embargo...

Why should one be surprised that the US Department of State is involved in geopolitics?

Your example further reinforces my point that content matters less than who is saying this content. You quoted a phone call that was very likely to be have intercepted by Russian intelligence and quickly disseminated on Russian-owned media, yet you're freely posting this on an American website.

> Why should one be surprised that the US Department of State is involved in geopolitics?

It is absolutely not!

It is surprising to me that people believe the USA are victims and not the greatest instigators of geopolitical unrest of the past 80 years (at least).

> You quoted a phone call that was very likely to be have intercepted by Russian intelligence

Nahhh

The Russian intelligence simply put it in the open, but who actually intercepted Nuland is unknown.

The point is we perfectly know that the USA are waging wars to also punish Europe, but it cannot be said, because platforms are all from the US and follow US directives.

That's why people also followed in love with tik tok, it was a breath of fresh air, finally few things that we all know are true (Nuland transcription just prove it) could finally be said (again: never used the platform, that's what people I know have said to me and I know a lot of regular people, white collars, regular jobs, kids and all the rest. They simply understand that American social networks and American propaganda have become so unbelievably false that it's baffling)

> yet you're freely posting this on an American website.

Am I?

Have you noticed my name is a generated random string?

Do you ever wonder why people like me do that?

Being conservative, marrying, raising children and being nationalistic does not align with Russian propaganda.

Similarly, all so called "far-right" parties that are supposedly financed by Russia in the EU ultimately are in favor of national interests.

Similarly, Ukrainian nationalists are in favor of Ukrainian interests.

If it came to a war between Russia and the EU, who would fight? Not the chicken hawks of the Green Party, but the "Deplorables" who vote "far-right".

The entire Russian influence narrative was concocted by the Neocons who had moved from the Bush era Republicans to the Democrat party. Now everyone realizes that perhaps China and Russia had financed culturally left organizations all along, which is entirely in line with the historic behavior of the Soviet Union. So everyone abandons ship now and pledges allegiance to Trump.

Regarding the division to the US population: That is in the interests of the established two parties, so no one looks too closely what is actually happening.

> It's the opposite: if they can block any alternative to the "hive mind" they can easily pursue any interest they like and make you believe that they align with your interests.

It is definitely not the opposite. You have very recent cases where Russia has been caught financing US right-wing hate-speech "influencers" to spread extremist talking points fed by Russia's propaganda effort. Their purpose is to sow divisiveness and turn Americans on each other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/01/russia-...

It was not the first time either. In 2016 Russia was caught actively trying to spark a race war in the US.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol24/iss2/2/

> You have very recent cases where Russia has been caught financing US right-wing hate-speech "influencers"

So what?

You also have the same kind of "influcence" from the US, on a total different level though, given the disproportion of available budgets between the two.

OTOH that wasn't my assumption, I simply said that single minded propaganda will harm free people more than those who are not free.

Russia or not Russia (it is honestly ridiculous to compare Russia to the USA at this point of history).

> In 2016 Russia was caught actively trying to spark a race war in the US.

And you don't know what the US has done exactly because they do not allow platforms to speak about it, the "fact checking" was simply state censorship disguised as "war on fake news".

No one can seriously believe that Russia can outsmart US intelligence or outmaneuver them, unless you don't really think that the US are collapsing and are no longer the more powerful country in the World, with the more powerful military, with the more powerful and pervasive intelligence.

Which is frankly not credible.

But there are still people out there that with a straight face will tell you that the US elections have been rigged by Russia (or at least they tried).

Which would put the US behind even some small country like Luxembourg or The Vatican.

> So what?

If you can't or refuse to understand the danger of having totalitarian regimes destabilize your country, including calls for extreme violence against minorities, then no wonder you're trying to argue there is nothing wrong with having the likes of Russia and China screw you over.

> If you can't or refuse to understand the danger of having totalitarian regimes destabilize your country,

I happen to be born in a country where the US have controlled every single elections for 50 years, at least.

I know what happens when you refuse to obey to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA

My "so what" should be read as: does this really sounds new to you? haven't you heard about stuff like "operation condor"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

Yes! exactly. Post JFK and MLK assassination, there is no need to physically kill a physical being or movement. You just need to do character assassination of the person/idea. And with the fast moving nature of internet disinformation, once you kill the person's reputation that person is effectively neutered.

Post trump win people in elite circles started to realize and actually discuss (to my amazement) that maybe they should not have played all those games to derail Bernie Sanders. TikTok served as an interesting counterweight to the national narrative on many topics. What does not directly affect China negatively may also pose a threat to the US and that seemed to bubble to the top on TikTok from time to time.

on an ironic twist of events: the POTUS himself promised to save Tik Tok

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tiktok-goes-dark-us-users...

Is it because he his a collaborator of the CCP or because the accusation against China where just a ruse to move the attention away from the Dem losing the elections on their own incompetence? (I am in no way a Trump supporter, but honestly the Dems did everything in their power tho lose the elections)

I will say the one problem with it from the perspective of young people is they always get the dick.

* Young people suffer the hardest from the housing crisis

* Young people suffer the most in any kind of job market challenges

* Young people have the least say in elections

* Young people now give up the app they use that actually makes them happy and helps to forget about how shit the world has become for them. Also an app that makes some of them real money.

Basically, the youth have no real legislation in their favour while their quality of life continues to degrade. I imagine that gets old.

This is a rant from someone who supports the tiktok ban.. but I'd extend it to all social media.

Just because I think it’s interesting to mention given your perspective about how the youth feel, here is how they’ve changed voting patterns [1]:

  In past years, voters under 30 have proved essential on the margins, especially for Democrats, where even minimal shifts in support can decide an election.

  It was a group that Vice President Harris had hoped would be part of her winning coalition this year. Instead, she underperformed, and President-elect Trump made gains.

  Since 2008, winning Democratic candidates have received at least 60% support from young voters, but Harris did not meet that threshold, getting 54%, according to early exit polls.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/11/07/g-s1-33331/unpacking-the-2024...

Gen Z is interesting. My brother and sister in law are Gen Z (my wife and I are older millennials). My brother in law and his girlfriend are openly Trump supporters (both happen to be non-white). They went to the rallies and stuff. So are a lot of his friends at work in a blue city (tech sales). My sister in law is liberalish, does the pronoun sharing before group meetings for school, but doesn’t feel strongly about the issue compared to virtually all the millenial women I know.

Over the last 16 years Democrats have occupied the White House 75% of the time, so for younger folk Democrats are the establishment and Republicans the underdog.

I'm not sure it's that simple. You have to take into account Congress and the Supreme Court as well.

I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of Americans, let alone those in the 18-29 age group, can name their senators and representative and anyone on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, most Americans instead seem to imagine this country as an autocracy in which they get to vote for a new ruler every four years.

Probably the most impactful to your own life vote you can cast is the local municipal one. And that has such poor turnout among the youth it is crazy. Even in places where they mail you a ballot automatically and you have two weeks to vote at polls. People just don’t care to be engaged.

I think it’s more specific than that. The 2008 surge of young people to democrats was driven by rage at the failures of two institutions: the banks (the Great Recession), and the intelligence apparatus (Iraq war). But those institutions never were reformed, and today the Democratic Party has become the staunchest defenders of the banks and the intelligence apparatus.

But for Gen Z folks, that stuff is ancient history, isn't it? Even the oldest members (using 1997 as a starting point, but some definitions use 2000) were too young to protest or serve in Iraq[1]. By the time the youngest Gen Z folks were starting school in the mid-2010s, the US stock market and unemployment rate had reached pre-recession levels too.

[1] I mean when people cared about Iraq, 2003 to circa 2008. We still have troops there, but I don't think most of America is even aware of that.

Both of those institutions were, in fact, heavily reformed.

What you actually mean is that there was little personal legal accountability for past actions, which I don't disagree with. The legal and political frameworks they operate under has changed quite a bit though.

I've been fascinated by the shift towards Trump by 18-29 voters in this past election, and I think this is a good explanation that I haven't heard before. Yeah, and Bush 43 was so long ago that his popular image has turned from kind of a villainous "worst president ever" to a favorably remembered elder statesman according to some polls.

Note that it was a shift for Trump, still not a majority voting for him. Exit polls that I've seen still indicated an 11-point lead for Harris[1], but that's much more narrow than the 24-point lead that Biden had in 2020[2]. Anyway, I've been fascinated by this because it kind of broke my mental model imagining that the Republican party would eventually be marginalized as its voters died of old age. I definitely thought Trump was going to lose this age group in 2024 by the widest margin ever.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/exit-polls

Racism and mysogeny is still very much alive among the youth and quite a lot of the US lacks any diversity to combat those notions. Or if they do have diversity on paper it might still be somewhat segregated where these communities might be neighbors but don’t overlap in activities. Less a melting pot, more a punchbowl filled with different fruits bumping into eachother.

> Young people now give up the app they use that actually makes them happy

Citation needed - social media seems to be very bad for young people's health, if anything.

If the US was doing this for teen mental health, they'd have banned Twitter and Facebook too.

This isn't about teen mental health.

I don’t think the parent comment was arguing the motive for the ban.

They’re just saying they’re not convinced TikTok causes the overall happiness the GP comment claims.

I think it’s hard to argue that any social media has a net positive effect on mental health of any age, let alone the younger generations.

My own claim is more like a dopamine high. Like smoking. Both bad things in the long run, but makes them happu in the moment. Video games probably up there too in their current manifestation.

Anywho, main point is more about giving this already vulnerable demographic more tools to succeed. Especially if, from their perspective, all we keep doing is making their lives worse.

That's like telling a drug addict that it's bad for his/her health. Sure you're staying facts, but they're not going to take it up. Might as well preach to the wind.

From a young one's perspective, it's natural they're going to take it as one more incursion into their lives, else Red Note, an app made for a largely Chinese audience by an unrelated company would not have seen so much uptake over the past few days.

Do we have actual numbers on signups for RedNote though? I feel that if I’ve learned anything in the past ten years of social media, a lot of noise is made by a very small percentage of users (not necessarily even people).

> Citation needed - social media seems to be very bad for young people's health, if anything.

One would need citation for either claim honestly, there's plenty studies around the idea that social media actually doesn't have as much of an impact on mental health as people seem to believe, as well as the other way around. If we get more specific, people who have or are prone to certain psychological conditions do get aggravated by social media, but the same way that's true, it could be for anything else would there not be social media. In the end, what the comment says holds true regardless of how it may affect their long-term mental health

I don't disagree with you that it's probably bad for them, much like smoking. But it makes them FEEL temporarily happy. Much like smoking.

Do you see my point? We're just taking random shit from them without giving anything back. Also, objectively, Meta's platform is just as bad for them as tiktok, so it's obvious to them that it's not being taken away because we actually care about their mental health lol.

Thanks for pointing their position out. I work with and have these kids they have a lot to offer. They manage a lot of complexity - thus practicing for the always increasingly complex world. I know it’s cliche for prev generations to be down on the next. I have seen such an uptick in talking heads blaming them for {something}. e.g. Bill Maher They have little power! Lacking enough to execute what they are supposedly the cause of. Those who do should wield theirs to improve their education system or whatever deficit they believe the “kids” have instead of blaming.

> * Young people have the least say in elections

While this is true from the perspective of voting laws (you can vote after 18 but you don’t need to be 18 to see how f’d ip things are…), it’s also true that the age bracket 18-29 has the lowest participation in elections. I didn’t do the math but I would not be surprised if the last elections turned differently if this bracket increased to percentage levels seen amongst older ages.

https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-20...

Young people (and really any working age people) just really don't have that much time, energy, and (mostly importantly) money to dedicate to impacting election and legislative results. When you're working age you have more imminent things to worry about, but the matter of fact is that it's mostly retired people who think the world is going to s*t whose voices are heard the loudest.

Of course you can say it's a question of priorities and it's "their fault" for not being politically active, but I would argue the system is stacked against young people's political participation.

Also, most places in the US have minimum age limits for elected positions.

Voting isn't hard and costs nothing

People who don't vote have no right to complain about the government.

Arguments like yours are used by lazy people to justify non-participation. You aren't helping them by making excuses for them.

I'd say arguments like yours are why people don't vote.

They don't vote because people criticize them for not voting?

What are the demographics that don't vote and how do they compare to your current status (financials, privileges, etc) in life? Be data driven and get back to me.

It’s also true that age 18-29 bracket is less likely to have historically been registered to vote and that they are typically working in precarious positions with less ability to take time off to vote.

If voting registration was automatic, and election day was a holiday, I’d expect the participation across age brackets to be much closer.

I don’t know much about voting in other states, but Texas does have it. In a way. I never had to go anywhere to register to vote. It was a part of my DL application, and it got updated with each change of address. You don’t need the mail voter registration to vote either— just your DL. From my understanding there are some states where it’s still not that easy but many do have this integrated with DL renewals, issues or similar.

I agree that Election Day should be a holiday. There’s a slight issue with Federal Holidays being applying only to federal employees and not necessarily to independent businesses, which can choose to observe it or not… but it’s a start.

Also in Texas, the polls are open for early elections for like two weeks ahead of Election Day. I always take advantage of that. No wait, no hassle, in and out. Most states offer either that or mail-in voting.

Young people are also less likely to have driver's licenses.

put the election on a holiday, there is absolutely no justification for it not be a holiday.

I agree that young folks feel the pain more acutely - inflation, education and housing costs hurt the most as they have the least amount of income/savings.

I’m not sure I would elevate TikTok to that degree though - we have some serious issues especially for young men. Not sure that scrolling through TikTok videos is actually fixing any of that- it’s like saying “don’t take away the heroin, it’s the only thing that makes me feel happy”

We're aligned on your second paragraph. It just doesn't change how these demographics *feel*.

Maybe if we're going to cancel tiktok or whatever, offer them some tax credits to cover the cost of registration for a coed sport or other such things that might enable them to be happier. Do more to help them get their first house and get their life going.

Just taking things from this demographic, without giving back, is a surefire way keep them disenfranchised. Even if we're taking something away that is objectively harmful to them (but still keeping instagram around lol).

Then either participate in your government or, at the very least, vote. Take control of your destiny.

> Take control of your destiny.

Deck is stacked against them from birth. The entire system discourages from a young age what you're proposing. So if these kids feel so disenfranchised (and often filled with misinformation) from a young age, it's entirely unreasonable for us to expect them to "step up" in a vacuum.

You need better systems in place from the beginning to help someone become a better person.

Well, better do nothing then!

It's like asking pigs to rebel buddy. If you want people to energize, you've got to give them more the a pulse. You've gotta at least let them think they've got a chance at the American dream of they energize.

Reality is the American dream is dead for most young people not born with a spoon up their ass. And that seems more and more by design. When you experience this reality your whole life, you carry a level of apathy that "get out and vote" is meaningless to hear.

Lives need to get better from a young age. People need to believe in the American dream again. But the policies set in place over the last 30 years are heavy.

Sure, but your choices are to:

1. Participate in the system 2. Violently overthrow the system 3. Do nothing

Sitting on the internet and whinging about how the deck is stacked against you is choosing option 3.

Fact of the matter is that a lot of people picked option 3 because of whatever reasons they had and now a bunch of oligarchs and criminals are running the joint now.

Voting is the least you can do if actually running for an elected position is not an option.

What do you propose as an actual alternative?

The argument seems a bit hysterical, it's not like everyone is forced to use TikTok, they can get hair tips, learn about Gaza, or get whatever views from TikTok, or Facebook, or Twitter, or Twitch or...

American's would have the freedom to choose what social media they want to consume, now they are forced to only have one controlled by a US billionaire.

the point is that US has clear and direct influence to twitter/facebook/instagram algorithms and recommendations and they can suppress one topic or another. it is not the case with tiktok, and this is primary reason for this ban

If that is the what happened, they made the best case for shutting down US owned social networks across the world. It is not a specific case of misbehaving, but the power they give to the American government that can collude with these oligarchs such as Elon Musk.

I understand that people who don't work in intelligence can have a difficult time recognizing risk, and often don't really understand the war other countries don't work the way the US does with the rule of law, but these are very much not baseless allegations. These are not even historical misbehavior. These companies explicitly and intentionally support and perform intelligence actions on behalf of their countries' intelligence services. Facebook and Google absolutely do not.

Kaspersky has been very credibly linked to Russian intelligence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_and_the_Russian_gove...

And Huawei has been very credibly linked to Chinese intelligence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei

There is often an attempt to equate these behaviors with compliance with court-order subpoenas, but they are not the same.

American companies absolutely do aid in intelligence gathering. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A for an example

I swear, people would equivocate bicycle accidents to plane crashes if it suited their narrative.

In 2022:

1,105 deaths related to bicycles vs 357 airplane related deaths. Depending on the metric you choose you can argue that either one is more deadly.

So yes, people here would do that.

This is actually a really great example, I wish I had included it in my original post.

Here, in response to a very public failure of our security apparatus, the US Congress passed a draconian law allowing the US government to do the kinds of bad things that Russia and China do routinely. When the public realized this, they made it clear that there is a limit to the power of the government, and that behavior was very quickly stopped. Forever.

The idea that there is a limit to the power of the government, and that the general public can enforce that limit, is what makes America different than China and Russia. That difference is foundational to our Constitution, and I think it is a very good thing.

> When the public realized this, they made it clear that there is a limit to the power of the government, and that behavior was very quickly stopped. Forever.

My memory is hazy on the details and Wikipedia might be wrong, but (1) didn't the lawsuits against the perceived perpetrators (NSA, AT&T, etc) fail and (2) is it also not true, that not only was "Patriot Act" not quickly repealed, the sunset provisions were extended throughout the 2000s and 2010s?

But nothing was done to Room 641A? What imaginary limits are you talking about? All the lawsuits went nowhere.

I'm all for the TikTok ban but listening to your last argument a reasonable opponent might notice that:

1. You assume others play dirty by default, even though we never caught them red-handed. Not necessarily unreasonable, but see 2.

2. You assume we play fair even when we are caught red-handed. You rationalize it with "it only goes to show this was the exception and look what happened after". Spoiler alert, nothing happened after, neither the courts nor public opinion shit it down.

You have to admit these two are a little inconsistent to say the least.

Last I checked NSLs didn't require a court order, not even one from a secret one with zero effective accountability.

> If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume, then they can influence the narrative of the country.

From Noah Smith:

> Second, the refusal to sell the app tells us that the Chinese government would rather see TikTok destroyed than see it fall into American hands. Notably, that same government put up little fuss back in 2020 when the U.S. forced a Chinese company to sell the gay dating app Grindr to an American company. Why shut down TikTok and leave untold billions of dollars on the table, instead of just selling the thing like Grindr was sold?

> One possibility is that it’s an attempt to make young Americans angry, in the hopes that they’ll demand that Trump and Congress repeal the 2024 law. But a simpler explanation is that Chinese leaders simply think that TikTok, unlike other apps, is so important that they would rather destroy it than see it escape their control.

> Why? Some supporters of the divestiture bill argue that TikTok will transfer Americans’ personal data to the Chinese government — something it has already admitted to doing in a few cases. Others are concerned with TikTok’s social harms. But the biggest concern is that by controlling the TikTok algorithm, the Chinese government might be able to propagandize America’s young people — and to silence Americans who say things it doesn’t like.

> In fact, there’s some pretty strong evidence that TikTok already does exactly this. Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute has produced a number of papers about TikTok’s manipulation of information to suit Chinese government desires. The standard methodology is to compare topics on TikTok to similar topics on Instagram and YouTube. The NCRI people find that content on the different platforms is broadly similar, except where China-related issues are concerned. […]

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning

The easiest real example I'm aware of is that there was a scandal around the Houston rockets and China (years ago) and you could not find their content or content related to them on TikTok. (You could for every other NBA team)

In this example: who cares? But the problem is how implicit everything is.

Imagine that a major US ally (like Israel) were attacked by a globally recognized terrorist organization. Imagine if, for some reason, a high percentage of people on TikTok ended up being opposed to the US government's support of their ally. Imagine if there were protests across college campuses. And counter protests.

Would we know whether TikTok was behind the scenes, sowing discord? This is the kind of thing - weakening our alliances - that china would love to do. If china can reduce our willingness to defend our allies (think the Philippines in the south china sea, or Taiwan which.... there's explicitly a project 2027 in China to be ready to invade Taiwan)

Do we want the Chinese government to have the ability to do this?

The American voter shouldn't be treated like a mere link in a strategic chain of cause and effect. They're the legitimate authority in the US.

Sorry I'm confused by your comment. The American voter voted for Congress. A bipartisan majority passed this bill easily. The executive branch signed it. The judiciary branch confirmed it.

Where is the American voter being sidelined?

Congress has a "strained" relationship with the voter. On one hand, the voter put them in that position. On the other hand, the voter is a greater danger to the individual in Congress than any foreign adversary. As a result, politicians try to control the voter, the way an employee would try to manage their manager.

This is done in a number of ways. For example, because the media has a great influence on the voter, politicians seek to influence the media. Journalists who publish unfavorable information are denied valuable interviews, incentivizing them to stay close to the administration. Lobbyists with connections to major advertisers, which have a great influence on the media, are attended to with high priority.

Another method is to close off the voter's access to information that originates outside a politician's sphere of influence. This can be done by encouraging nationalist jingoism and a distrust of outside influence, by outright bans on foreign press, or in this case, by either banning or causing a transfer of ownership of a social media platform that had proven unhelpful to a past administration's intent for the media landscape. For TikTok, this was hosting middle east peace activism.

The American voter is sidelined the second their elected official is sworn in, and immediately reneges on everything they said they stood for in favor of their moneyed interests. 90% of politicians have no intent whatsoever of fixing problems, after all those problems are what got them elected.

It's obviously fine to be this cynical, but I think the particular shape your cynicism takes is incorrect^ and I also tend to think people who are overly cynical willingly reduce their ability to affect change

^ the description of campaign promises feels very 90s to me. We tend to have a lot of information about how our elected officials act. I think most of them believe more of what they're saying or advocating for (although the reasons why they believe those things are fairly widely varied)

Some people think Elizabeth Warren is pure evil incarnate, and I think she considers herself as a policy wonk who loves nuance and is trying to protect citizens from ruthless capitalist entities.

The same is more or less true on the other side (I'm not sure who the analog is exactly, but a republican Elizabeth Warren would imagine she is protecting companies and citizens from government overreach)

Citation for the real example: https://stratechery.com/2019/the-china-cultural-clash/

Ben Thompson's 2020 piece about banning TikTok: https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/

Note it's not a plan to invade, just a plan to be ready: https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/05/07/how-dc-becam...

> Do we want the Chinese government to have the ability to do this?

yes. If too many people started reading aljazeera should we ban that too? Do we want the US government to have the ability to do this?

Those are very different things!

I agree they're different, but IMO they're on the same spectrum - "a difference in degree, not in kind". Where would you draw the line?

Bad - quietly manipulating social media recommendations for millions of Americans ... - a chinese company launches a Netflix competitor in the US. They don't create content but they can choose which shows and movies are "recommended" - a Chinese TV show series becomes popular in the US. They know it's popular in the US and not China. It slowly and subtly starts injecting plot points that are pro-China ... OK - foreign news sources

This specific law draws the line at social media. That seems reasonable!

As a rough heuristic, compare advertising on social media vs on traditional tv. Note: we've actually (intentionally) reduced the effectiveness of online advertising (you can no longer target as narrowly)

Imagine being able to make sure that a very specific person receives a very specific type of propaganda. These are power tools. It is not in the United States' interest to allow foreign adversaries (countries that specifically view the relationship as adversarial) to wield them

You can be cynical. You should say the power tools shouldn't exist. But given that they do exist and given that we have a very limited amount of agreement in the US, is it better to ban TikTok? Or not? We do not get to say "don't do it because there are better approaches." This is the approach we have. It's the first time in four years the political will had almost enabled something that was genuinely better for America.

It seems that [the executive branches of] both parties are happy throwing that away though

To me, this whole thing just comes across as craven and excessively politically motivated by the US government. If they were really concerned with apps (whether or not they're owned by the Chinese government) collecting and selling user data, they would pass adequate and enforceable privacy laws. Banning one specific app is addressing a symptom rather than a root cause, and any solution to an issue like this ought to apply to the entire field more broadly. I don't necessarily think that banning TikTok is a bad thing, but to do so in such an obviously politically motivated way belies a lack of concern about the underlying issue (i.e. the mass harvesting of user data).

So you're telling me the US can't compete in the marketplace of things or the marketplace of ideas?

On foreign policy and intelligence issues, there are no “party lines.” There’s just the uni party. Same people who said Iraq had WMDs. Default reaction to anything they say should be to assume the opposite.

> classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.

Romney pretty much said it was Israel. They think that--but for tiktok--zoomers would be supporting the genocide in gaza.

My guess is that Trump will negotiate with China that tiktok sticks to the party line on Israel and then it's allowed back in. Possibly it will come with some kind of verification system for someone in the US to pre-vet narratives going forward. Fortunately China already has sophisticated systems for this pre-vetting which they are currently using on their own population.

If it isn't clear to anyone yet:

Trump is the kind of guy that likes to create a crisis, so that he can be the knight in shining armor that comes to save people from it. Whether it is a constructed one, or a real one, that's what he does.

I’m not sure if this message from the team is a smart move. ByteDance’s decision seems quite strange—it actually strengthens the arguments of those supporting the ban. Critics can now point to this and say, “Look, this proves our concerns.”

While Trump has hinted at possible delay of ban, he has also made many statements that are unlikely to materialize. This is Trump for god sake - we all now what we are getting here.

In my opinion, he won’t delay the ban immediately. He’ll likely wait a few days to gauge ByteDance’s reaction. If the owners aren’t overly concerned about losing access to the U.S. market—given its strategic value beyond just financial aspects—then the ban might not be postponed.

Also, keep in mind that both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg wield significant influence over how this situation unfolds. Additionally, platforms like Truth Social play a role in the broader landscape.

Moreover, there are classified briefings, intelligence reports, and strategic simulations—such as how TikTok’s algorithm could potentially be weaponized in the event of geopolitical conflict—that we simply don’t have access to.

They set trump up to be a hero. The dude has wet dreams about being beloved dear leader.

The question is if people are still going to use tiktok when Trump bites the CCP bait.

Will he change the constitution to allow himself to candidate again in 2028?

Honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if he did...

Yeah.

Those with security concerns about TikTok will be frustrated, because the app will continue to operate.

Those with free speech concerns about the ban are also frustrated, because the law to ban TikTok was upheld (but might be ignored).

To top it all off, we will see an especially blatant disregard for law enforcement from the executive branch.

This seems to be the likely path, everyone loses and our system of government looks like a joke.

Walked downstairs this morning to my 12 year old girl complaining about the Tik Tok ban and noting that she saw that message. She’s now asking me what Trump can do to save it. It’s going to be hilarious when Trump reverses the ban.

Trump just posted this on Truth Social:

I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.

Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.

I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars - maybe trillions.

Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.

—-

Basically the same thing - I will extend (so I’m hero) but you need to sell.

If only things like kids getting shot in their classrooms or people dying while insurance companies profited was as compelling as whatever was in that classified briefing

And on cue - Trump has signaled his intention to stall the ban via executive order. The wording of that message is like kryptonite to that man. It’s simply begging for him to come out and say “see only I can fix it!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/19/technology/trump-tiktok-b...

So I have a relatively large extended family covering a wide age range and we talk pretty frequently in a shared SMS group - most of them have noted the ban with a passing level of irritation but nobody's "freaking out" like if you lost access to a platform like Facebook, Twitter, or Discord that's more oriented around communication rather than consumption.

I understand that people spend a lot of time doomscrolling on it, but even with millions of daily users the optimistic side of me really wants to believe that it won't affect anyone's mental health in any measurable way.

Perhaps this TikTok ban is a time to reflect around their addictions and cravings.

A new year's resolution to go cold turkey and a chance to change a cure their own addictions.

It is not the end of the world. Just the end of someone's supply of a brand of digital drug.

>"Perhaps this TikTok ban is a time to reflect around their addictions and cravings."

And tell "go fuck yourself" to FB, Instagram, X ... etc.

At the end of The Truman Show when it goes dark the cops don't switch off the TV, they look for another channel.

And the government won’t have a problem if the new digital drug is under their control.

That's weird, my optimistic side is hoping it'll have a noticeable positive effect on people's mental health.

Maybe once they also ban American propaganda on American social media platforms.

I feel like I see so much negative, anti-America news I am not sure what propaganda you are even talking about. It's all over Reddit, Twitter, and TikTok. I would say Reels is suspiciously missing unless you subscribe to people directly.

How old are you? The younger generation grew up post 9/11, post the great recession, post the COVID lockdowns. There has never been a time of economic stability. Combine that with being informed of world events at lightning speed, Its naturally going to lead to pessimism.

They weren't talking about pessimism, they were talking about propaganda.

The propaganda sticks because its rooted in some truth.

That the world isn't a utopian place and economic downturns happen? That was also true in the 20th century. The one with 2 world wars and a cold war between nuclear powers.

Yeah well the unfortunate truth is this pessimist generation saw their parents buy a house and build wealth with a nickel, a piece of bubblegum, and a handshake so your argument will fall on deaf ears.

It is the opposite actually: propaganda is designed to create the illusion of truth in your own mind. Kind of like the movie Inception, but out loud.

The “we are at war with China” propaganda, among other things.

Because the mindless videos they get on YouTube and such are better?

What, I can't be happy about just one of the many faucets of garbage being briefly turned off?

There won't really be a noticeable effect IMO. It was banned in India a few years ago, everyone pretty much instantly moved to reels/youtube shorts. I don't know how creators managed, but the consumption just moved to another app.

Nothing specific to TikTok either. PUBG mobile was also banned here around the same time, and people just moved to Call of Duty mobile.

Well, in India people are used to authoritarian government banning random online stuff. Or shutting the entire Internet down for days

This is the first largely used anything online the government has banned, and I'm personally still upset it even got this far. The internet was supposed to be free speech incarnate, and banning apps and websites for Americans on it, isn't something I honestly thought I'd ever see

From the POV of the users it doesn't really make any difference whether the government bannd tiktok, vine went bankrupt, google decided wave was not worth it or any other reason a service becomes unavailable. They will cope by moving to a different service or changing their consumption habits

Except for people who's income depends on it. And their families. And their friends.

Most things sold there appear to be cheap, fast waste products. happy to have them gone and their unsustainable practices.

That certainly doesn’t reflect my experience with authors selling their books, musicians their music. Things I would never have found on my own.

This is silly. It's like a TV channel going off the air. People who need to advertise will use other available channels (Facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, Reddit, etc.) instead.

Yeah, no… Bluesky is the best potential alternative.

It’s worth knowing I don’t go seeking new music on TikTok. Music that resonated with me was brought to me while looking for other things.

Topics which I found interesting lead me to books by new authors I didn’t know were authors on topics I didn’t know I wanted to read about. I’m not even much of an avid reader

No it's not. These aren't people just buying ads - they have a whole following that they need to rebuild somewhere else.

People had years to prepare.

there are a decent number of people who make money and market their business on tiktok. those people are probably concerned about their future

They only care about the userbase they will just start publishing to whichever platform users choose

> those people are probably concerned about their future

As they should be, because they stupidly made their lives dependent on a single platform that anyone with a brain could see was likely to run into trouble sooner rather than later.

The lesson for the is: don't put your eggs in one basket.

Your response is very unempathetic. I am not a "content creator," and hn is the closest thing I use to social media, until TikTok a year or more ago. I won't be following anyone anywhere; I'm not on those platforms.

I listened to the final, farewell videos of several people. Some have leveraged TikTok on other platforms, but for a great many, TikTok was the only platform that let them reach an audience.

TikTok was eating the competition because it was simply better at matching content. It is a completely different beast in that regard.

Calling people stupid who leveraged an unrivaled technology to build a community and/or a business feels particularly anti-human.

> Calling people stupid who leveraged an unrivaled technology to build a community and/or a business feels particularly anti-human.

I'm not calling them stupid for that, I'm calling them stupid because they didn't have a back up plan. Public policy should revolve around what they need or want (e.g. I'm sure some farmer somewhere could make a sob story video about how growing opium poppy has been so good for them, so heroin shouldn't be banned, but it's not about him).

They had an entire year to prepare.

It’s always uncomfortable when realpolitik clashes with the values we aspire to have.

What is freedom, anyway? Surely it can’t include allowing a foreign adversary access to a knob to twist on an important demographic of society. A foreign adversary who is actively compromising the network infrastructure of that society [1] but definitely wouldn’t touch infrastructure around an app owned by a Chinese company.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. One person's portal to a better world is a state's vehicle to shaping it in the state's interests.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-hacking-espio...

that's a slippery slope. The Russian government is also justifying all of its censorship with foreign interference (this line of argument works with the Russian public, just to note), take care!

Indeed. It's the road to open government censorship. There is no grey area when it comes to freedom of speech.

I'm less certain that it's a slippery slope than it is a fine line. The government does not appear to have a problem with the speech occurring on TikTok. It is not trying to apply censorship or forcing the app to close down. It tried to force it to be sold away from its Chinese ownership. It tried to mitigate the possibility that a foreign adversary can use the app as a tool for its own interests. Had TikTok divested itself instead of shutting itself down the dancing would have continued on.

the state as such consists of many entities, all these entities are not all pulling into the same direction.

divesting was never a real option, why would you spawn a US-based competitor - and it would cut you off from all the global content? just never a real good option

> this line of argument works with the Russian public, just to note

To a degree... I'd say western sanctions targeting the population as a whole were at least as effective in supporting the autocracy.

Hard to tell if the sanctions are targeted at the population or at the military industrial complex of Russia. I am not an expert in these matters.

When you can't use your credit card abroad or be paid for your work from there I thinks it's pretty clear.

Everything's a slippery slope.

> What is freedom, anyway?

It's a question of freedom for whom and freedom from what.

we are not at war with China. i did not vote to be at war with China. i am an adult and should be trusted by our elites to be able to read whatever i want.

the entire ethos of our country is antithetical to this notion of well-educated, affluent urbanites deciding what information diet is ‘correct’ for the dirty masses to consume.

I think a lot of people on here never spent much time on TikTok and it shows. It wasn't just for young people and it wasn't all brain rot.

There were vibrant communities, subcultures.

Real issues were aired there. Real people connected. From the early days of Covid it provided a window into a broader world.

Can you give some examples? I a skeptical that the format, designed for maximum retention and engagement, can be a positive.

I mean, John Saves Energy is one that comes to mind. He shared tons of info about his solar power rig, interesting data, vibrant conversations.

Music accounts like Rare The Nanas who put me to sleep many nights with amazing VHS finds of obscure 90s music performances.

Tons of music theorists, weird quirky bands and musicians who built huge followings there, film makers, game devs, and on and on and on.

What prevents JohnSavesEnergy from posting content on any other platform?

The question is: what prevents creators like JohnSavesEnergy from emerging on other platforms.

My guess is that TikTok paid for their format more than anyone else. By posting on YouTube it might cannibalize the earnings. Now that it is banned it might as well be on YouTube or some other platform.

Not being noticed due to low quality algorithms. To me TikTok was the first proof that recommendation algorithms can work. I have been using manual curation for so long because so many times I open YouTube or any other social media with the intent to consume content and get that same old feeling "there's nothing to watch" like flipping channels on TV. Just scrolling unattractive thumbnails.

TikTok may have been too effective and addictive, but it undeniably worked. I started watching many niche and interesting content creators that the other platforms wouldn't recommend to me.

> To me TikTok was the first proof that recommendation algorithms can work.

This sounds great at first. Now imagine you are not just into wood working, indie bands or travel logs, but instead slightly interested in right wing or islamist ideology. Within a short time you are flooded with political or religious propaganda. In Europe that has been a real problem. See for example https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000231964/auf-tiktok-re... or https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/tiktok-afd-100... (Sorry, German only.) The right-wing AfD politician Maximilian Krah became so "popular" on TikTok that the platform had to artificially limit his reach! (Kudos to them, but it shows the extent of the problem.)

To be clear, FB and YT have the same problem of creating filter bubbles, but the algorithm is less effective and therefore less dangerous (but still dangerous enough!)

I actually find the opposite is frue. YouTube constantly recommends more of the same of anything I watch, so watching one extremist or even extremist-adjacent video means I will get flooded.

What's so good about tiktok is that it keeps my interests thoroughly mixed. I'm bilingual and I see content from multiple countries about different interests and it keeps me in touch with all of them plus presenting topical and trending content. It also seamlessly measures my interest so if I naturally skip a couple of videos about a topic I'll see less and less until I see none.

> YouTube constantly recommends more of the same of anything I watch, so watching one extremist or even extremist-adjacent video means I will get flooded.

That's true. I got pretty frustrated by YT's recommendation algorithm. The front page got pretty bad and repetitive. However, there's always some good stuff in the right column when you select "similar".

But you know what you can also do? Actively search for stuff! I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my media consumption behavior into the hands of some addictive algorithm. (HN is already bad enough :)

> It also seamlessly measures my interest so if I naturally skip a couple of videos about a topic I'll see less and less until I see none.

Sure, but while you are interested it keeps feeding you the same stuff, like YT on steroids. This is all fine when it comes to hobbies, music, travel logs, etc., but it gets dangerous with other content. People don't really think "I'm not really interested into this right wing or IS propaganda videos anymore, I'll give it a break".

I can post identical videos to different platforms and get massively different reach. I have one video that has >2m views on Reels, but only 200 views on TikTok, and vice-versa.

Success on one platform doesn't always mean success on all.

How much money has MrBeast made outside of YouTube? (excluding Amazon)

Short form instructional videos on topics such as woodworking that get a point across in 90 seconds, rather than a ponderous YouTube equivalent

That you idly watched learning nothing retaining nothing because after all, it was what the platform picked for you, not what you sought out?

Knot tying, woodman tips and tricks, off grid tips, cooking (from basic knife holding to now knowing what a roux is, and how to properly make a gumbo my kids love), stories from people I would never have known, movie trivia, historical accounts, and being exposed to music I would never have otherwise found.

I truly feel a loss. I have changed aspects of my daily life for the better due to TikTok.

And I also watched too many cute animals and "don't talk to cops" videos.

booktok turned people onto books. there's even a wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BookTok

I haven't seen anyone argue that TikTok provides zero value.

That's great, but the people there should realize it's a bad idea to put all your eggs in one social media platform basket.

It's not like people aren't trying other platforms — but those platforms don't surface the same kind of content, don't provide the same reach, or are actively pushing their own agendas.

Fair enough, but you should post your content elsewhere too, as a backup, and to reach more people perhaps.

While platforms dominate, instead of content dominating (see podcasts where this seems to be happening), you will always be a prisoner to what happens on the platform.

It is hilarious to see “do more work for less returns” being bandied about on a business web forum.

Another hilarious observation: they flippantly tell you not to put your eggs in one basket while strategizing and salivating over how to make the sole basket in which everyone must put their eggs.

I definitely do but what's interesting in doing this is that it actually reveals to me how much each app really has its own culture. Sometimes I cross-post if it's a big project that I've been working on. But, I've found a lot more success in tailoring the content to the audience on each platform rather than trying to force something upon them.

would you say the same thing about Meta and Google? Clearly social media monopoly is not the issue. In fact, USA government want US dominance in global social media, digital world, and digital marketplaces.

I’m sad to lose the cross stitching videos, the travel log clips, the live streams of people playing instruments, and the tons of animal videos. Trying Instagram Reels, everything feels performative, which is annoying.

> live streams of people playing instruments

As one of those people, I definitely hope I can find somewhere else. It's essentially the only way I can play live anymore

Maybe this is a chance for the broader population to understand they shouldn't get attached to a free online service that can be shutdown for many reasons outside their control.

If you are an "influencer" build a following on multiple platforms.

If you are a business owner engage in marketing on multiple platforms.

If you need a video to tell you how to bake cupcakes or clean a kettle, learn to use Google.

If you are bored, learn to read.

This is so flippant. I do read. And I've been online long enough to know that things disappear. I read slashdot in the hay day and was on Friendster, and MySpace.

If Hacker News disappeared, people would be sad because it was a unique place. And others would say "just go on Reddit it's the same thing."

And those people would be mistaking functionality for community.

Yes, all things pass. But if you read what I said at the top, it's not that we should expect things to last forever. It's that people are flip about TikTok in part because they don't seem to have more than a surface level understanding of it — or a completely different idea of what it was than the people who really used it.

> I think a lot of people on here never spent much time on TikTok and it shows.

I agree whole heartedly, along with a horrendous dearth of empathy but unfortunately I find very common in Hacker News comments. Regardless of whether or not you feel that 170 million Americans all fell for Chinese propaganda, there is still a profound sense of loss.

For me personally, I've been writing and performing music on TikTok for about 3 years now and frequently found community and collaboration the likes of which I've not even come close to seeing anywhere else except maybe YouTube 10 or 15 years ago. Community they gave me the confidence to release music for the first time and folks who would actually listen to it.

I had a rather small following, but orders of magnitude of more than anywhere else IRL or on the internet

One of the coolest things for me was seeing a musician start out, and then several months later seeing that they'd blown up. And this happened often! There are a lot of musicians (artists too, etc) who never would have surfaced.

People say "you can just post on xyz" and yet none of those places surface these kinds of creators.

Many of the other sites are either pay-to-play at this point, or surface content that aligns with something they're looking to surface.

It is not so different from the US-based social networks: Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, etc... Both for the good and for the bad.

And I think most people here understand that.

If Hacker News disappeared, would Reddit be an adequate replacement?

Vibrant communities are perhaps a product of, but certainly not defined solely by their territory.

Luckily they're comprised of humans (mostly? Probably another discussion), and the ability to migrate is component to their nature; the good ones find greener pastures and adapt as necessary to define their next generation.

Yet on this very website it's likely majority opinion that if you want to start a startup you should move to SF.

A lot of those people have actively tried to build communities on those other platforms, but those platforms algorithms actively work against the emergence of the types of groups we've seen on TikTok.

(Perspective from an American)

Information is the gold of the 21st century. Whoever controls the flow of information has all the wealth and all the power. Therefore, data is the greatest currency in the world.

This outcome was never intended to happen, but ByteDance is taking a chance that the American government will relent. We’ll see in a few months who wins the stalemate.

TikTok has an immense amount of cultural power. The concentration of power scares me, no matter who holds it. But China ultimately having that power scares me more than an American company having it.

Again, this outcome was preventable, but ByteDance is hoping Americans let them continue with the status-quo. We didn’t and we shouldn’t.

I'm an American too, and I trust an app that has "china" somewhere in it's org chart more than Zuckerberg or any meta product.

Because youre ignorant of what china somewhere in the org chart means?

Please share a source that's not a CIA funded NGO or think tank.

"Please share a source" is an incredibly dumb retort in the realm of geopolitics.

"Please share a source that the allied powers are going to invade the beaches of Normandy". You can't, because people are working incredibly hard to keep that secret.

So you don't have any? ok.

Yes, there is very little public sourcing for what hostile powers plan to do in a geopolitical struggle. That's how it goes.

It is perfectly reasonable to infer what might happen based on past actions by the specific powers, and on world history. Attempting to gain geopolitical influence through propaganda is nothing new.

So we should "just trust" the same people who said that Saddam had WMDs?

No. But these are two very different fact patterns.

In one case it was "we have specific evidence of something that should cause us to go to war".

In this case it is "we can infer that a hostile foreign power will use a straightforward conduit to push propaganda to our populace if we come into conflict".

It's defense, not offense.

What can China do to our social networks that is materially different than what American tech companies are already doing today?

Maybe I'm being naive because I don't use TikTok, but all the partisan misinformation I see is being spread by either Americans on American social networks or maybe Russian disinformation bots operating on American social networks.

Given enough time - subvert your government. Take control of your country :))

I'm an American too, and I DON’T trust an app that has "china" somewhere in it's org chart.

Answer this: who has genocided 10s of millions? Who has crushed Tibet and threatens Taiwan?

CCP or Zuckerberg?

Then don't use it.

Yeah, and it is within my rights to call for controls over its ownership. After all, we are a free country.

Just like one person getting vaccinated is useless, I want the country to be inoculated from insidious propaganda outside of democratic control and review.

And it is within my rights to point out the hypocrisy of those who cry freedom

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-...

No it's not.

Yes, it is. I am doing it right here though, lol.

Of course it is. What point are you even trying to make?

Well if you want to talk about genocide & Facebook... https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho...

America has genocided 10s of millions for what it is worth. From Native Americans to slaves to all the wars in the last years to "export democracy". If any country can rival China in killing people needlessly it is the USA for sure.

If you’re comparing either current or historic atrocities, China is going to lose badly.

Trying to mix and match is obviously just disingenuous here.

In the 21st century the United States did this? In the 1980s? At what point do we compare countries in a modern era versus a bullet list of their historical record.

By that standard, Norway, Sweden and Denmark should be shunned for their slavery, raping, looting and imperialist colonizing abroad -- in the 10-11th centuries.

Not to mention incarceration rates, 119 vs 541 people per 100k. 4.5x difference to an oppressive state.

Hmm if Saddam killed 50 thousand innocent Iraqis each year, and American intervention only cost 40k lives each year ... Then do we deduct 10, or add 40, to the "ten million" number you came up with?

You get one guess for who caused the spike on this graph of global deaths.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361...

Don't forget about all the deaths related to unnecessary poverty or lack in health care.

Nice substitution, now let’s try it in “ByteDance or US Govt” form.

(Please don’t ask naively how US controls mass-media, no desire to follow up on that.)

> Nice substitution, now let’s try it in “ByteDance or US Govt” form.

Not substitution, and you somehow missed the fact that it's China's CCP, not ByteDance. It's China's CCP that acts through a de-facto shell corporation called ByteDance, the same CCP that stands behind the Uighur genocide, Tibet annexation, threat of invasion of Taiwan, etc. That's who you are defending as the desirable option.

Yep, there are no rules in the US, anyone can own a company and do anything they want. There is no evil government pulling the stings from behind the curtain.

https://www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/mergers-transactions...

https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/biden-admin-delays-enf...

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...

Are you even aware of the context of the reasons why Tiktok went dark? Did they do it with no provocation? By accepting the US's arguments for the Tiktok ban we're just aligning ourselves with the same ideology of "the enemy" you're trying to malign.

I didn't miss anything of that. It only seems to you because you happen to have a very blind eye on the literal inverse (I guess).

See Myanmar for what Facebook has done.

What do you suppose is gained by making CCP pay Zuckerberg for the privilege? Or are you proposing that he'd turn their money down?

The US has done plenty of that sort of thing in south America and the middle east, but it has always had the extra burden of maintaining a narrative under which it was not doing those things. If we let the US ban services that are contrary to its narratives, what's left to stop the US from behaving like China even more than it already does?

Yeah we may have to cross that bridge later. (Indeed, I think it's a major concern that Musk controls Twitter and has demonstrated an inability to criticize the Chinese government time and time again.) But we can at least cross this bridge first.

Tibet was a feudal society. The only people who were "crushed" were the people landowners and the elite monks.

Both sides of the strait want the status quo in Taiwan for various reasons. Detent would be the correct approach instead of further military armament. It would be like if the Soviet Union continued to militarize Cuba from the Cuban missile crisis until the current day.

I'm more concerned about the genocide in Gaza than some CIA assets in Germany playing make-believe.

Can you recommend some social apps from China that we may have not paid attention to? I’m assuming there’s a list more than ‘RedNote’. I tried using WeChat but it’s not where my network hangs, unfortunately.

You probably know some that have enough non-China presence.

Why not just use RedNote? It has all the freedom that is deprived in the US [1]. /s

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-...

You almost fooled me with the sarcasm. I am concerned with how many folks in this thread have massive sympathy for China. No doubt the West has had many issues and continues to do so but China is getting painted here as the bastion of freedom and openness. That they trust a Chinese app more than Meta when it’s absolutely worse in mainland then the lives they have in the West.

with china wysiwyg, with USA you believe you have freedom of ____ (you don’t) and you believe “US-owned” (X is not, hence the quotes) social media is in any way “net positive” for its citizens…

Not sure what your point is? Why are you using quotes on something I did not even say? Weird.

No doubt the West has had many issues and continues to do so

This … you are right in that West has issue … where you are wrong is that the issues are just as dangerous (if not A LOT more) than China. I quoted “US-owned” cause one of the biggest social media platforms that everyone considers “West” is owned by an African

Completely fictional but amusing dialogue "No lonny I can't make them sell you tiktok anymore, our dark lord and comrade used it to help get me elected and that requires tittat for tiktok. Besides, the name Tox was a bit too on the nose don't you think?"

Not all quotes are quoting you or anyone else.

Woah very good knowledge. Thank you. When his entire reply has little to do with my comment then yes I will make a point about it.

the fact that you are not getting how this thread relates to your comment is … weird to say the least …

Is the hate for Meta so great that you actually trust a Chinese app more? China absolutely has zero privacy protection and everything explicitly runs through the great censor wall.

Don’t mince words. Meta absolutely has issues with data collection but it’s comical to think they somehow China is better.

What are China going to do to with my data that US companies haven't already done?

Help China's military.

It has nothing to do with your data. That whole thing is a red herring.

The risk with TikTok is that it presents media entirely algorithmically, and that algorithm is controllable by the Chinese government and is opaque to everyone else.

As demonstrated by this ban, we're objectively worse now.

The true threat to our democracy is a foreign power. It's just not China.

Yes banning TikTok is a threat to democracy.

Unironically it is

Just because you say it does not make it so. Oh the irony.

How so? The law was passed by democratically elected representatives in the US government.

AIPAC (foreign lobby) money.

They also profited heavily from picking favorites. Senator Cotton mysteriously increased his net wealth by 2 million in the past year.

This is silly. Yes, there is a lot of money in American politics. No, that does not mean that any particular lobbying entity, even the AIPAC believe it or not!, controls what happens.

This isn't a battle of moneyed interests vs. penniless altruists. There is plenty of money on TikTok's side here.

If you find yourself buying into a simplistic narrative about a single organization buying the exact law they want, you've been had. It's never that simple.

In this case, it is this simple.

AIPAC wanted this.

They threaten congressmen who buck them with being primaried. They reward compliance with money. This is not behavior we see routinely from other special interests.

No, it isn't. It's obvious to anyone without their head in their ass that the current setup with the Chinese government having control of a media platform that is dominant in the US and presents content to people based on an inscrutable algorithm.

It has nothing to do with the AIPAC besides that they happened to support the "well duh" position on this.

I get that "it's the jews" is the preferred cope of people on TikTok who don't want to think about this too much, but it really has nothing to do with this. This all started years before the middle eastern omnicause du jour.

What's your objective metric? I would say one side has way more websites and apps blocked than the other. So if we go by that measure then I'd say the one with more websites and apps blocked is objectively worse.

Civil rights aren't a zero-sum game. America must lead by example by not silencing 170 million people because of some "intelligence" that's likely less reputable than Saddam having WMDs or the Marty Rimm report.

As an American who has more power over me, powerful people in China or powerful people in America?

Who is more likely to give my data to my government to adverse affect?

Who is more likely to lobby my government to adverse affect?

What reasons would a foreign government want information about foreign citizens of its adversary?

At the end of the day you are the outgroup when it comes to the CCP and it'd be best to remember that.

If you are an American, the intelligence community already treats you like you are the outgroup.

Which is another problem entirely but it's whataboutism. It says nothing about the CCPs motivations.

It's endlessly amusing that people are willing to speak positively of an authoritarian state, not even for a paycheck which one might not forgive but at least understand, but merely for their daily dose of brainrot[0] videos.

[0] In the dictionary sense of the word: https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the...

>Who is more likely to lobby my government to adverse affect?

Dude, the concern is that allowing TikTok is quite literally allowing the CCP to indirectly lobby. It's how this whole thing got started in earnest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...

The geopolitical utility of the app is to give the CCP more power to manipulate and hurt you. They want to get closer to the level of power that domestic US powers-that-be have. I'm blown away that this seems to lost on so many people commenting here

Maybe my interests and those of the general American public are more in line with the "CCP" than Israel regarding international affairs.

Putting CCP in quotes is silly. It is not a conspiracy theory that the CCP exerts an extreme level of control over ByteDance.

Your interests are probably not aligned with the CCP. The American public's certainly aren't. The Chinese government wants to achieve a hegemony and export their economy and culture by undermining the US wherever they can. We don't fit into that in a way that won't result in a markedly worse life for us.

TikTok would boost content about how Israelis making target practice out of Palestinian children is great and needs to happen more often if it made the US look bad. That you can't see that, or can't separate that instance from other possibilities, is exactly why TikTok is under scrutiny.

It's in quotes because the actual English initialism is CPC.

Using "CCP" shows your ideological bias.

You say that like CPC doesn't carry an ideological implication of its own. To the average person, the distinction between calling it the Chinese Communist Party and the Communist Party of China is so miniscule that they're not going to seriously engage with you if you earnestly try and take that angle. Go ahead and nitpick over how people refer to the party at your ideology's expense. I sure as shit won't stop you.

It shows that you make no effort to get non-US media and don't have informed opinions.

I make plenty of effort to stay informed, I just don't make any effort to argue inconsequential shit to signal that I'm "more informed". At some point in this conversation, you just quit addressing anything other than what you believe to be the most accurate initialism for the Party like anybody cares. You're either deflecting or are arguing silly points for the love of the game. If you genuinely believe what you're implying you do, you're actively repelling people from your ideology.

As of yesterday, powerful people in China had a lot of power over you. As of today, they have a lot less. That's a good thing.

What is the point of App Store rules if your privacy continues to be at risk. Oh yes, every single app must declare if it uses name, or email, or address, or camera, but all of them are exempt except TikTok? If you want to make the App Stores more stringent, sure, go for it.

The issue is ability to manipulate people. However, should not the NSA monitor how the algo is working, and be empowered to cut off TikTok if for example you start seeing a million videos saying "Taiwan, the eastern province of China". I am sure we will still have control, we just need to be smart enough to "tap" into what content is being fed.

Data collection is a worry of the previous decade, the recommendation algorithm is the battle ground, the US has decided that it much prefers having Meta push its white supremacist and gender wars drivel non stop than what was being shown in TikTok (Israeli atrocities)

While we are at it we should show the Hamas atrocities while we are at it. Would not be complete, without someone of the fake heart pull videos that Hamas traditionally put on as well.

Well that's very naive. It sounds like reverse polarization. Thing A is so bad that Thing B is less bad just because it isn't Thing A.

I'm an American, and I have worked for both Zuck-owned and Chinese-owned companies, and you really, REALLY might want to re-think your stance. It's extremely ironic that we as Americans have this "question authority" thing so deeply ingrained in our DNA that it pushes us towards authoritarianism just to be contrarian.

We should have consumer freedom under equal protections. Imagine if the FDA only regulated imported food and drugs, and if those regulations were only related to trade wars.

In Europe it's currently in reverse. We have harsh regulations for food produced in Europe and import food not satisfying those regulations.

First time I hear about this, have you got anything to read about it?

https://www.foodwatch.org/en/foodwatch-calls-on-european-lea...

There's also a problem of food coming from Ukraine - initially Poland allowed Ukrainian trucks to enter Poland as a transit through EU, as the sea passage was blocked by russians. That passage is no longer blocked, however, and there were incidents where it was detected the food was actually bought and processed in Poland.

If the government was also addressing the concentration of power in the American social media apps, I’d buy it. If this was about making laws on what info phones could record about you, I’d buy it. If this was about establishing transparency laws to allow the government to better enforce the privacy laws it has, I’d buy it. If it was a law saying recommendation algorithms can’t be used for political content, I’d buy it (though not sure that’d be constitutional).

Instead this says it’s fine to spy on and manipulate US citizens and concentrate media power, so long as you’re “American”.

You're right. This is what it says. I don't think you have to buy anything outside of that. I think most Americans are more comfortable with American entities spying and manipulating them than a Chinese entity.

The law would literally allow an EU entity to own it, or a Brazilian entity, or a South African entity.

China isn't going to send me to death camps for posting an authorized opinion. Most Americans don't care if China has any of our data and would prefer to be protected from US corporations than random far away countries with no physical reach.

No it’s fine to spy on US citizens as long as we (NSA) have the access and control that we want to the greater world population data. They aren’t okay with China taking that role/opportunity from them.

Like it or not - when it is a US company that does it, the powers that be in the US can do something about it.

When it is a foreign platform controlled by a foreign government, the US government can't do shit about it.

It boils down to national security. We live in an age where (dis)information campaigns have real consequences.

Facebook needs to be banned too if disinformation is your concern

Bytedance already won.

Biden flat-out admitted he was not going to enforce the law once it passed, and Trump is pushing for a 90 day "Extension" because "finding a buyer" has proven more difficult than initially expected. this statement is intended to save face as bytedance has repeatedly refused to sell.

What we are watching now is US leaders in both houses of the oligarchy (democratic and republican) scramble to undo policy that was written by people who think the US still has the type of pull it had in the sixties. banning Tiktok in the USA would mean one of the largest social platforms of more than 150 nations combined would have zero US presence.

the US must constantly and vehemently evangelize western values and hegemony in order to protect and maintain the international neoliberal hegemony it has come to enjoy. Washington realizes they have effectively and accidentally cut themselves off from a system of propaganda they benefit from domestically (election rhetoric and stumping) as well as internationally (hearts and minds doctrine of diplomacy and soft power.)

Its bad to operate in a contested environment with china, but its worse to endure a denied environment where the only voices are not yours.

The reason Trump will reverse it is that it helped him get elected. He said this in interviews already. "It is hard to hate it when...".

It also helped that Hungarian candidate when tiktok was used by Russia to push him...

It should be gone. I wish we would ditch FB too. And SEO. Kill all the algos and let me find stuff via regex.

> It also helped that Hungarian candidate when tiktok was used by Russia to push him...

That's actually misinformation and narrative invented to support coup by Romanian security services/supreme court to cancel elections. No Russians were involved. TikTok campaign was financed by center-right party but backfired in unexpected ways.

https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-...

The linked article doesn't say that, nor does any of the ones it linked to about the eu investigation.

I assume he’s also trying to line up a buyer that would be friendly to him

Regarding Trump, yes. Also,

> Kill all the algos and let me find stuff via regex

I love this. As someone who increasingly feels old and dissatisfied with what computing is turning into, I'm going to start using this along with things like "you'll have to pry local accounts, passwords, and plain text email from my cold, dead hands."

Interesting point...that leads one to think why did they make this stumble? US generally is a smooth political operator. I immediately go to the theory that their hand was forced to make this bad move by another actor (maybe pro-israel donors). Of course who knows the truth really.

> But China ultimately having that power scares me more than an American company having it.

Why?

As an American, support for democracy and (small-l) liberal values is the best type of government.

These liberties are built into the U.S. Constitution. And, while the U.S. government makes mistakes, this is the ideal we strive towards.

“If people criticize Israel on your app we will ban it” is the antithesis of liberal values.

Btw, lots of nice stuff is in the Chinese constitution too. Doesn’t really matter if it’s not followed in practice.

People were trying to get tik tok sold before the current war in Israel

China hawk republicans, yes. Not enough people to matter. The democrats only got on board, giving it enough support to actually pass, once it became the main place pro-Palestinian content was spreading.

I just went on instagram reels to disprove your point by finding posts critical of Israel. They certainly exist, under the search term "gaza". But the search term "Israel" is straight-up blocked, so obviously the censorship is real.

EDIT: example critical post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DEYK037S2N-/

US govt. doesn't make mistakes. It actually plans dismantling other countries over decages building civil society and NGO assets. You are horribly misinformed and using less acerbic language to make it palatable.

> But China ultimately having that power scares me more than an American company having it.

Well for people not from US, China having that power is absolutely better. After all, unlike the US, China hadn't invaded another country or instigated coup for the past 40+ years.

The U.S. makes mistakes. Everyone is free talk about them and try to correct them.

Sometimes, we overcorrect or under-correct - or are slow to address things.

But we admit them. I think that counts for a lot.

I think it is unfair to point to military mistakes as undermining all of U.S. credibility.

It took forty years for the country to begin atonement for the hardships inflicted on its own citizens during WWII, and forty years after that discussion began, we’re again talking about interment camps.

We make mistakes and learn nothing from them.

> I think it is unfair to point to military mistakes as undermining all of U.S. credibility.

US didn't invade Iraq and other countries "by mistake". Same with all the coups and regime change operations. If you think these many instances are mistake, well then I have a bridge to sell to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

We're actually not allowed to talk about them, see the Palestine genocide content being suppressed in US public spaces and social media platforms, but not on Tiktok.

Oh yeah?

Because in the first half of last year, pro-Palestine discourse has been occupying heavy majority of my social media feeds (twitter, reddit, ig, etc.) without me even engaging with any of that content. Not even mentioning all the pro-Palestine protests outside that I got to witness myself. And I had a chance to witness plenty of anti-Trump protests (both irl and in the media of all kinds) during his first presidency as well. Open any social media, and you will see tons and tons of people talking plenty of very strong anti-Trump and anti-Biden rhetoric.

How well would any of that fly in China?

P.S. If pro-Palestine content was “suppressed in US public spaces and social media platforms,” they were doing a really poor job of it. My IG and twitter feeds were just filled with it, despite me hitting “not interested” on most of it. Meanwhile, TikTok algorithm was actually respecting my preferences, and my feed there was filled with stuff I actually cared to see (like 3d printing projects).

[removing because I don't like HN's comment system and drunkenly engaged in a pointless posturing contest with a tanker.]

> but saying China's power is "better" feels tone-deaf, especially considering places like Hong Kong

I'm no expert on Hongkong, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere as bad as a genocide where 50% of the victims are children funded and supplied by the US. So yes, China is better.

> Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis. It is impossible that such widespread shooting of young children throughout Gaza, sustained over the course of an entire year is accidental or unknown to the highest Israeli civilian and military authorities.

https://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024

[removing because I don't like HN's comment system and drunkenly engaged in a pointless posturing contest with a tanker.]

Yes you need to get sober first, maybe then you'll realize how absurd it is calling someone who are against Israeli tanks killing children as a 'tanker'.

I deleted that comment because it got downvotes. Downvote this one too, tech startup incubator trolls.

Edit: Also reaffirming my position the parent commenter is a combative CCP apologizer using irrelevant comparisons, as all the sibling conversation clearly points out.

Edit: I'm done interacting with this platform that ironically doesn't respect people's boundaries and is more of a club house of narrow perspectives centered around increasing wealth for select technical communities.

Your taking your emotions for the Gaza conflict and applying it to the issue at hand TikTok.

Yeah, I like how HN keeps increasing the karma threshold for just being able to downvote. I don't often get downvotes, but when I do it's definitely for wrong think and attempting to disarm people with humor. I'm sorry but this platform needs to treat people like humans, and I refuse to be a part of it from this point on because of that. If I could downvote and move on, I'd comment less. This platform is toxic.

40+ is a bit weird of a timeline to give considering they invaded Vietnam 45 years ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

yes, checks out? that seems to be why it is worded that way. They can't write 45 because of that invasion, so 40 seems to be the ballpark?

Oh get real. China is equally a bad actor in more modern times. They have massive human rights issues, suppress free speech, took over HK before the agreed upon time. It’s not like they are some angel in this scenario.

unlike the US, China hadn't invaded another country or instigated coup for the past 40+ years.

No need to invade when you can do neo-colonialism to take over Africa, social media to influence the vote of your primary rival, and forcing a puppet government in Hong Kong (i.e. a coup). Not to mention destroying coral reefs to build artificial islands for military outposts in other nations' waters and blatant sabre rattling against Taiwan and even maritime attacks on peaceful neighbors.

China is regularly swinging their fist within range to tweak noses and crying foul when they're called out on their aggressive behavior. The only reason a war hasn't started is because their victims haven't stood up to their nonsense yet.

More perspective as another American: ridiculous inflation, staggering economic inequality, pathetic education standards, ridiculous emissions regulations, ensuring women's access to healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, the housing market, school shootings, student and medical debt, and of course, healthcare, are all issues that are actively demolishing our society right now, and the Government won't do a fucking thing.

They did however manage to ban one of the brain-rotting apps. Not even remotely a majority, but one.

I don't need one line of CCP propaganda to know the American government is a fucking joke.

I doubt this has anything to do with "data".

I generally view "data is the new oil" arguments as a sign that the journalist doesn't know what they are talking about, especially if they can't characterise what data they are referring to or why it is valuable.

More likely, this is about control of the recommendation algorithm, and therefore control of the narrative.

Absolutely but I do think there is a slice of data. Unlike meta selling its data, we have no idea the full scope of what bytedance collects and sends home. My one thorn is we are so consumed with China but somehow it ignore Russia.

They specifically said it was in part about preventing ppl from learning too much about the US backed Israeli gaza genocide.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/why-people-think-us-effor...

This article is just reporting that people on social media believe it to be about Gaza, it adds zero information on the veracity of that belief.

"Still, TikTok’s opponents hadn’t relented. Jacob Helberg, a member of a congressional research and advisory panel called the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, has been working on building a bipartisan, bicoastal alliance of China hawks, united in part by their desire to ban TikTok. Over the past year, he says, he has met with more than 100 members of Congress, and brought up TikTok with all of them.

Some lawmakers built momentum for the bill by holding hearings to introduce their colleagues to arguments against TikTok, Helberg said. He also co-hosted a hearing that focused in part on TikTok.

It was slow going until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok, Helberg said. People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app.

Anthony Goldbloom, a San Francisco-based data scientist and tech executive, started analyzing data TikTok published in its dashboard for ad buyers showing the number of times users watched videos with certain hashtags. He found far more views for videos with pro-Palestinian hashtags than those with pro-Israel hashtags. While the ratio fluctuated, he found that at times it ran 69 to 1 in favor of videos with pro-Palestinian hashtags."

linked in the article https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-tiktok-was-blindsided-by-a-u-s-...

And how does the recommendation algorithms work? Without user data, it’d be nowhere near as potent at being addictive and dominating in the collective human attention economy.

Oil isn’t useful in its raw form either. Do you think we’d be plagued by cookie banners on almost every single website if they didn’t think collecting data was crucial to their business? Not to mention AI, where the analogy is reinforced for obvious reasons.

So data being the new oil is not a terrible analogy. However, I have to agree with you that the reasoning and justification from journalists is often fluffy and completely off-mark. I’d cut them a bit of slack, they’ve been through a complete economic massacre and talent exodus precisely as a result of this new economy.

I think the difference between these apps is that in China the "recommendation algorithm" is that the wrong sort of people just go missing. There's less heavy lifting for the app to do. That's why people like it more, it itself has a simpler agenda: make people enjoy using it.

In the US, for the most part, the app must do both surveillance and coercion, which is why the kids prefer the Chinese app.

3 comments total from this account totaling 28 karma at the time of writing and this of the top comment on a 1500+ comment thread about a major issue? Ok.

That fact is relevant to the issue. This comment is the most “State Department talking points” comment you could make and the finger is put on the scales to elevate it.

That’s exactly what Google and Meta do with content via recommendation algorithms and comments.

And it’s what TikTok doesn’t do, which is the exact reason it was banned.

Oldheads will remember when comment karma was public. Its hidden now basically to hide just how manipulated comment rankings are.

Lol. I lurk on Hacker News. I am not a U.S. government employee.

I just felt compelled to state what I thought was missing from the conversation.

The issue isn’t about you per se. it’s about what HN promotes. Since we can’t see comment karma anymore, we usually can’t tell.

But your case gives us a window into that. 28 karma from 3 comments, none of them grey, puts a really low ceiling on the karma this comment has.

Again, nothing against you personally.

You do realize that comment weight it’s time and point based? 0min comment will show up at the top. Get out of here with your conspiracies.

Maybe an oldhead can shed some more light on this: hasn't it always been the case that comments are ranked by a combination of timeliness and votes, as to prevent any single comment to dominate the top of the page for the duration of a story's frontpage time?

Comments will absolutely get rotated so the same comment generally doesn’t dominate. My understanding was there was a lot of manual intervention in this process. I could be wrong.

It’s also true it’s never been a strict ranking by net votes either. Getting a lot of upvotes quickly will elevate a comment.

It’s also suspected that certain users will have their comments upranked or downranked based on their history as well as manual intervention.

Organic ranking still exists but there are many, many thumbs on the scale. Hiding comment karma just makes that less obvious.

I don’t normally engage in HN meta-commentary. In fact, it’s highly discouraged. It’s somewhat ironic that an obvious, egregious case of content manipulation here is directly relevant to the issue at hand: the TikTok ban.

I'm willing to bet Americans are the most propagandized people on Earth. And it's done by our government with the "public/private partnership" aka "unconstitutional workarounds" of all legacy media and social media outlets. Facebook has admitted as much, and the Twitter files proves it.

China controlling the flow of information is the same. The only difference is China is upfront about what information they are feeding everyone.

You guess? As a Chinese I can tell you you are wrong by 10x if not more.

As a Chinese, you know what you can't talk about. As an American we are "surprised" when our "free speech" results in overt government-sponsored censorship.

You are very wrong.

You can still say whatever the hell you want, unless you're actively inciting violence against protected minorities. You just have to do it on one of the many social media platforms that aren't owned by China.

>I'm willing to bet Americans are the most propagandized people on Earth.

Perhaps. It might feel that way because we have multiple sources of propaganda and interests trying to sway us while places like China only have one. We have political party propaganda, government propaganda, corporate propaganda, special interest group propaganda, religious propaganda, grass roots propaganda, etc. China has government propaganda that encompasses all of that.

I also think the US apparatus' are just better at hiding which information is propaganda and which isn't; this makes it harder to spot. China has full control so it doesn't really matter if its propaganda is believable. Once you bring up a generation on it, the propaganda turns into reality.

Exactly.

So what is the tiktok ban really about? If it's about the lack of narrative control, we should see the same ban being applied to RedNote.

>So what is the tiktok ban really about? If it's about the lack of narrative control

Probably part protectionism of our social media sites, part retribution for China banning our social media sites, part an attempt to control the narrative from at least a foreign competitor perspective.

An interesting thing that might happen is the influx of US users switching to RedNote will be difficult for the Chinese government to sensor. This could introduce some western culture and values into everyday people in China.

>we should see the same ban being applied to RedNote.

Good point. I'm not sure the government is equipped to handle this sort of thing without creating an agency with pretty broad powers. I would prefer that didn't happen.

With enough of the proper training the fnords are invisible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord

It’s offensive to the notion of free speech as Americans profess to respect.

If the capabilities of these services are so dangerous, we should have laws and rules to control the danger. Instead we’ve done some nationalist cowing to send a message, and we’re arm-twisting Zuck to adapt Facebook to the political expediency of the moment.

That's a misread, tiktok speech .. eg eating toxic Tide Pods for competition .. can be gotten and made in the USA still.

That’s not the point.

Where does it stop? Should my company by eyeing a switch to Oracle services because SAP is German?

The questions in the message I responded to were:

> offensive to the notion of free speech

And, something about New Law (vs Policy enforcement by administrator of agencies or political elected leadership positions), to prevent damage from speech .. via Facebook.

I wanted to fast-forward past this second question, as I think it's a red herring here -- Facebook Management and their operation in the USA is not legally beholden to the government of China. Tiktok is, so it's different. So I rejected the second question.

Then back to the first, the notion of free speech and taking offense. I recognize free speech is not total, as I understand my rights here in the USA. And I see corporations as existing Only by sanction of government. Therefore the authority still rests within the State to moderate corporate behavior.

Tah dah .. that's why I think it's the correct point.

What am I overlooking?

Then, the hypothetical (?) about Oracle and Germany, yes. If your company reasonably can expect to be seen to be working with a partner, that's offering services similar to Oracle, and which is legally obligated to the worldwide operation constraints of an enemy of the state of your company's incorporation (USA), like China, then yes.

Service operators are responsible for following the law in locales they are operating in. Other than existing, what law is TikTok violating?

I’m all for controlling propaganda. Where are the rules?

> It’s offensive to the notion of free speech as Americans profess to respect.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. China's CCP spying and conducting psyops is not free speech, and forcing China to sell it's controlling position on TikTok has nothing to do with free speech.

That's, amusing enough, the propaganda that's being pushed onto you, which even forces you to criticize a policy that you failed to even be informed about it's rationale and main points. You're fooled into believing that eliminating one of China's attack vectors is somehow an attack on free speech.

All that talk about Israel and genocide is what got TikTok banned, even as TikTok was heavily demoting such truthful content. AIPAC couldn't take it. A lot of issues that are Israel first are disguised as America First by the Deep Christian State.

Whatever dude.

> Whoever controls the flow of information has all the wealth and all the power

Control of information is not a legitimate function of the state. The only real reason to ban TikTok or any other platform is establishing control over narratives, and the government must never in a free society put a thumb on the scale of ideas.

So what if the Chinese can boost this message or that message? Is our society so fragile it'll fall apart if people are exposed to the wrong ideas?

The TikTok ban is awful not because TikTok is great, but because it's the state arrogating power to control what's in people's minds. It was no right to do that!

> Is our society so fragile it'll fall apart if people are exposed to the wrong ideas?

Yes.

The ban is great because TikTok is a foreign company that is operating with asymmetric privilege given that American social media companies are banned in China. It's unacceptable for a foreign company to be given network privileges without American companies getting the same level playing field in China.

> So what if the Chinese can boost this message or that message

Propaganda is effective. Let's not pretend it isn't. This isn't freedom of speech from an American citizen being censored. This is a militarized, industrial, foreign nation exerting influence over the people of its chief rival while it actively blocks American companies from doing the same within its borders.

> Is our society so fragile it'll fall apart if people are exposed to the wrong ideas?

This reductionism to "exposure to ideas" is absolutely absurd. TikTok and any other algorithmic feed isn't problematic because it exposes anyone to anything. They're problematic because those feeds can be used to actively shape behavior.

Shaping behavior is not very difficult if you have a lot of information about someone and control of what they see for hours a day. If shaping behavior didn't work no social media company would make the billions of dollars that they do. TikTok fads wouldn't exist if it was just a simple exposure to ideas.

TikTok in particular is worth targeting because of the way state security laws work in China. There's no legal issues with the state apparatus accessing company data. There's no judicial review. The state just has access to companies' back ends.

Since we know social media feeds can shape personal behavior and China can exert any control they want over Chinese companies, it's not a logical leap to realize a state hostile to interests of the North America and Europe having control over something people use for hours a day is a bad thing.

There's a whole cohort of the population for who TikTok is their primary source of "news". Their world view is shaped by what's presented to them. They're not "exposed to ideas" but targeted with specific narratives. Because all users have different targeting you may never see the same sort of feed as the person sitting next to you.

This line of thinking is just a revisit of MKUltra's obsession with the idea that folks, in general, are highly manipulated.

If you look at the arc of that very motivated thinking, and if you look at the work that the US government did to try and implement the kind of control you're describing here, I feel the only correct conclusion is that it's almost impossible to actually fabricate what folks think with any systematic success.

The best you can do is, maybe, "Coke is it", and even that is more of a product of peoples' material tastes and dislike of New Coke.

I don't think there actually is much evidence to support the idea that "social media feeds can shape personal behavior" in the granular and targeted way that you (and many folks) are implying here, in which someone's worldview is shaped for the short-term goals of XYZ actor.

I think you probably understand this, which is why you hedge into the abstract idea that social media is simple "shaping" via altering a statistical means.

I agree that it is possible to expose extant impulses as "legitimate" in ways that open folks to acting differently (I certainly wish I had understood how flexible gender expression could be when I was 14 instead of 40- I would have probably led a much different life). I think that kind of exposure to larger communities really does have an effect on people, because it certainly had an effect on people.

However, I find that to be very different than creating impulses that aren't there- I think that kind work requires, for instance, a system of bullies in school to beat folks when they don't conform to "accepted" gender roles.

But even if it were true that actors could create ideas, it begs an obvious question: how do you tell the difference between your "authentic" views and the "implanted" ideas of the media you consume?

I (personally) don't think that you (personally) have completely had your opinions actively shaped by some state actors.

I think a historical dialect merges our lived experiences with the communication we get from the folks around us: fundamentally we are drawing conclusions based on information from our surroundings in toto. Since it's very difficult to get people to ignore their lived experiences for very long, and the cost of doing that work requires the largest military and prison system in the 300k year long history of homo sapiens, I have a hard time believe that "media" can do that work very effectively. Doubly so in a world where there are multiple televisual streams and no one takes the NY Times seriously.

But if it were possible to easily, through media, manipulate whole populations, it really does beg that question stated above:

if "brainwashing" is possible, why haven't you assumed that you personally, have been the long-term target of those kinds of programs by the state which rules you?

I fear our govt more than Chinas. Just put CSPAN on in the background for a while. Our government's north star is war.

Our government is more than that simplistic reduction.

I don't think this is a data issue, but more of control over media in a sovereign nation. In a free market, can another sovereign nation hold a chunk of the market share in media? I don't know. All I can think of is the impact on regular everyday Americans who use TikTok to make a living.

So why not break down Meta and Google first? Too convenient.

A better read I think is just Trump paving the way for Musk and his supporters to monopolize control of data and attention. First step for a silent oligopoly of democracy.

What we're seeing here is American tech companies making America more like China--I'd rather tolerate both online and find a different way to mitigate the threat of anyone having this kind of influence.

If concentration of control over concentration scares you then a social media not owned by the US should be welcome. Now you have an all-american echo chamber.

We’ve arguably been a better society with TikTok than with any other large-scale American platform. The moderation policies on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or any media outlet have been egregious, and more detrimental to the cultural health of the United States.

At the same time, we’re still not equipped to fully understand the complex and often hidden ways that information can influence people online. Some critics go as far as attributing mind-control capabilities to TikTok, yet everyone’s “For You” page is different—driven largely by a user-led algorithm rather than top-down editorial control.

So we've stripped back a genuine outlet for the masses. And now must accept prescription/participation for any similar digital experience or large-scale information sharing in our country.

> everyone’s “For You” page is different—driven largely by a user-led algorithm rather than top-down editorial control.

But do you really know this? Just because your homepage is different from other people, doesn't mean there isn't a thumb on the scale.

Of course, Meta and the like also tweak their algorithms, in their case to maximize engagement and profit. Who knows what TikTok might be optimizing for?

I personally think we should regulate the shit out of all these things, especially the hyper-addictive short-form video brain rot, and especially for children.

I have started to change my stance on China. Is it worse than the US if you hold them both up to the light? Sure, all of us can cite Chinese ills that we don't have, especially in regard to individual freedoms and democracy. But those things can be fixed.

China has never in its history practiced imperialism. They don't have a burgeoning and entrenched oligarchy.

What good is democracy when popular initiatives never see the light of day? What good is it when political parties ignore court ruling and continue to hold elections on Gerry meandered maps? What good is it when people are continually enslaved by debt and taken advantage of?

I'm not arguing for China here but we have a handful of social media properties controlled by one man who can change the narrative on anything with the drop of a hat.

We don't even really promote the individual (liberal democracy) anymore. The rich and powerful leverage ignorance to hold power. It is disgusting.

And for the record, I still hold onto American exceptionalism as principal and believe America is the light of the world. This experiment has allowed many to ascend from poverty and make something of themselves despite what they were born into many, many times over.

It's a fine point of view, except we've been exposed to decades of propaganda how the Chinese Government is awful for controlling the flow of information, especially from the outside. I have a feeling the West is in a trap of its own making, it will either be consistent and allow what it asks others to allow, or will lose face because everything it allegedly stood for turned out to be BS.

I'm also an American - I think this action makes us look weak and scared. Like our tech can't compete with Chinese tech. Strong nations act according to a set of principles, even if doing so is sometimes inconvenient or dangerous. Weak nations are constantly compromising their principles in order to survive.

From CBSNews:

> U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that TikTok threatens national security because the Chinese government could use it as a vehicle to spy on Americans or covertly influence the U.S. public by amplifying or suppressing certain content.

In other words, US officials are scared that China is going to do what the USA has been doing with American social media apps in various countries

This ^^

And if the U.S. does ban TikTok then it sets a precedent that other countries can ban U.S. and Chinese social media apps in the same manner. Europe for example.

That precedent has always existed. The US banning TikTok changed nothing from a legal standpoint.

China _already_ bans U.S. social media.

For the same reasons US is doing now ;)

What stopped other countries from doing just that before?

Economic Hitmen

> In other words, US officials are scared that China is going to do what the USA has been doing with American social media apps in various countries

Yes, and? It's naive to think that this is anything new or surprising -- a country attempting to further it's own interests ahead of other countries that it is competing with.

> Yes, and?

Americans usually whined and complained that China banned US social media

I'm pretty sure most Americans didn't really care, outside of some bubbles like HN.

Only because it effected the share price.

lol no, as an American it’s always made me think that they weren’t utterly incompetent over there. With how it looks like TikTok might be reinstate here, it’s unclear I can say the same about us.

Also, American social media companies and all others need far more regulation. But that is really a separate topic.

If russia were to try to buy meta, that deal should be blocked. If china were to try to buy meta that deal should be blocked.

As a European, I find it quite outrageous to demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held. It is the old-school imperialist school of thought. If you think Bytedance is harming Americans, despite following american law, then amend the rules for social media companies. Or at least be honest enough to say: "The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards".

This is what they have said, in the most honest way of all — action!

well I believe if bytedance is a French company or Australian company this wont happen

People forgot about Alstom?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci

French company paying bribes is utterly believable.

I think it's totally reasonable when it has massive influence over your population and is controlled by a geopolitical adversary.

The EU banned Russia Today (correctly in my opinion) and that was nothing compared to TikTok. Propaganda isn't free speech.

I agree that the TikTok shutdown/sale/whatever-it-is is reasonable. But I also agree with the grandfather post that this standard should be applied to all social media. A company that is under the sway of the CCP is an obvious first step, but just because twitter and facebook are American-owned doesn’t mean that geopolitical adversaries can’t use them to control the population too.

The thing is that those companies are very much under the power of American law, so we can (and have) taken less drastic (and less effective, imo) measures to restrict adversaries from using them for propaganda.

Amending the rules to prevent that kind of influence would be reasonable. He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else.

But that's not what the law says.

> He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else.

The problem is that right now the power is yielded by the CCP, which is clearly unacceptable. The problem is not TikTok per se but how a totalitarian regime that has a long track record of actively engaging in espionage and psyops against the US is controlling that platform. Forcing the CCP to sell it's position mitigates or eliminates the impact on the remaining shareholder's interests. The fact that the CCP opts for scorched earth tactics is already telling.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is acceptable, but that the solution is at odds with a free market economy and values usually upheld by western democracies.

A company in Hungary starts manufacturing cars. They become wildly popular in the US. Everyone and their aunt is driving one. Then the US demands a sale for national security reasons. Does that sound reasonable? Instead, you address whatever the security gap is (data privacy, scanning for backdoors, data residency, etc) and enforce compliance.

In the case of social media, that would be mandatory tagging of paid content, advertisements, political ads (or prohibition of), along with measures to slow down/limit the dissemination of information so no single person can sway public opinion with the wave of a hand (cough cough X). In many countries, influencers are now subject to advertising rules, as it should be. At some point we'll need to get a grasp on how to do the same for news/opinion pieces.

Just dropping the whole thing into 'more reliable hands' without changing any of the rules of the game accomplishes very little.

It need not be someone in the US, just a country which is not one of a few named adversaries. A Singaporean owning company would comply with the law just as well.

So, principles don't matter anymore? It's all about whose side you're on? Because I think all those "unfree" countries think the same thing.

These people think that minimum wage "fact checkers" who delete posts that don't agree with their handbook are "freedom", not "censorship". So they think they have principles.

This is an absolutely unhinged take. The US doesn't allow more than 25% foreign ownership of broadcast media. That's not some "free speech" violation. If a foreigner wants to say something, they have many ways to do it. But they don't have those privileged ways.

But would you want the rest of the world to operate the same way?

If ycombinator wants to show HN to somebody in Germany then they would have to spin off a company owned by Germans to be able to show HN there? Same for France and the other 170-200 countries in the world.

This is obviously an unreasonable way for the internet to work.

Sorry what?

I'm pretty sure HN is accessible in Germany.

Are you trying to say there's some utilitarian principle where countries should allow companies from other countries to operate unrestricted?

I'm a fan of free trade! That's a good thing! But tolerance is not a moral precept. We don't have to allow companies that report to hostile foreign governments to operate!

Even among friendly nations, the European governments are fairly opinionated about how US tech companies are allowed to operate in Europe.

Which principles are we talking about?

If everyone under the age of 30 was using an app run by Nazi Germany would you be okay with that?

Propaganda is a weapon and no principle says that you should let an enemy army into your country.

Nazi Germany was a democratically elected govt, which decided opposing propoganda must be blocked for the better of the nation. So irony?

So you would be fine if all the kids in your country used NaziTok?

> NaziTok

isn't that the codename for X these days?

Oh, the irony!

I thought I was joking (admittedly a really good joke) but I was actually looking into the future.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/21/the-gestu...

> If everyone under the age of 30 was using an app run by Nazi Germany would you be okay with that?

First answer: I would ask myself why people are using a nazi-made app, first.

OTOH: the history of nazism in the US is more complicated than you think

A glimpse of it is summarized in the wikipedia page about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_in_the_Americas

After all the US arrived first to the Moon thanks to "operation paperclip" and a a former nazi scientist.

Let's say it's the same situation as now. They made a super addictive app that doesn't have any overt nazism but it's fully under the control of the NSDAP, we don't know how the algorithm works, and they can bias it anytime they like. It's extremely popular and most young people use it. Would you say this is fine, yes or no?

> Would you say this is fine, yes or no?

I would say I would totally be fine if the nazis made an app for kids to publish their goofy dancing videos instead of this [1], yes, absolutely yes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Even if they can tune the algorithm at a whim to include just a bit of antisemitism along with the goofy dancing videos?

> Even if they can tune the algorithm at a whim to include just a bit of antisemitism

You mean like all the US social networks banning or severely restricting the content on the slaughter being perpetrated in Palestina, mostly against innocent people and kids, while tik tok allowed it?

The answer is still yes, instead of the holocaust I will gladly take an app with just a bit of antisemitism, that, BTW, is not lacking on the platforms we all use and originated in the USA

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2023/07/14/antisemit...

Okay, so you're fine with the nazi party feeding your kids antisemitism through their funny dancing video app, that clears things up.

Instead of the holocaust, yes.

Now, that's not what's happening on tik tok, that's what's happening in your mind, as a thought experiment I would accept nazitok and tell my kids to not use it, instead of the holocaust and having no power to stop it in any meaningful way.

Wouldn't you?

Would you really reproduce the holocaust, just so you don't have to educate your children and explain them the right from the wrong?

that clears things up.

I don't understand where "instead of the holocaust" came from. I'm talking of a hypothetical modern-day Nazi Germany that's just as awful as the real one, and whether you would allow their funny dancing app. There's no either-or.

> I don't understand where "instead of the holocaust" came from

Since we are speculating, a modern day Germany has not perpetrated the holocaust, or it would not be allowed to exist in the European Union.

> Nazi Germany that's just as awful as the real one, and whether you would allow their funny dancing app. There's no either-or.

But what tik tok has to do with that?

If nazi Germany was still alive and kicking, it means we would all use their apps, because we would all speak German.

It would be what the USA are today.

We in fact use American apps or buy American devices even though they allow very bad content or are produced where labor protection laws are inexistent and worker are treated like slaves.

No one said anything about the European Union. Let's say our hypothetical modern Nazi Germany is in fact conducting the holocaust. Would you be okay with your kids using their funny dancing app?

Why is that such a big problem for you to understand that China is not the nazi germany and tik tok is not spreading dangerous ideas, it's simply less controlled by the US monopoly? (who are the nazi germany in this your little experiment)

But hey, you want an answer? of course I wouldn't be onboard with whoever is committing a genocide, just like I'm not on board with Israel and I boycott them and their products, as I am not onboard with the US foreign policy of the past 80 years (CIA was responsible for more than 90s changes of regime) and if it was for me US social networks would be banished in my Country.

I don't see many differences between the modern US and the nazi germany, besides the holocaust (which is not a small feat, I know, but hey, dangerous ideas are dangerous too)

> with whoever is committing a genocide...

Are you perhaps not aware of this issue? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/world/asia/china-genocide...

Or do you not consider it genocide?

First of all, I guess you are a little bit dumb, don't you know that 2 wrongs don't make a right?

Didn't your mum tell you that?

Secondly

> Are you perhaps not aware of this issue?

"Mike Pompeo is saying that" it's not proof.

I am talking about facts, for example

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/war-crimes-court-issues-wa...

> Or do you not consider it genocide?

It doesn't matter what I think, I am a no one, a genocide is not when USA say their adversaries are committing it but stay silent when their allies are condemned by internationally recognized courts (here, in the West).

BTW if you consider the Uyghurs issue a genocide, I got news for you: you should consider 80% of the countries of the World genocidal.

If you wanna play that game, no one should trade with the USA or use any of their apps and, god forbid, have access to their cultural (propagandist) material.

Take for example what's been happening at the Mexican border for decades

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59019791

The US says more than 1.7 million migrants were detained along its border with Mexico in the past 12 months - the highest number ever recorded

By contrast "only" 1 million Uyghurs have been detained to date (according to our sources, that are not official sources, we don't even have real evidence, just wild guesses).

You don't know how much you don't know my friend, when I read something like this I always think: tell me you are american (or plainly ignorant, they are synonyms) without telling me.

This is obviously an over-the-top response. I quoted what you said:

> of course I wouldn't be onboard with whoever is committing a genocide

And asked if you were familiar with these particular atrocities. These particular atrocities are fairly different from the American/Mexican border in enough ways that your conflation is fairly bizarre (is there forced sterilization at the US Mexico border? What about forced labor? Or do you consider those to be unfounded claims that I would only believe because I'm an American?)

Tbh mostly the US and their allies seem to prefer not talking about the Uyghurs. And, I mean, what is the US supposed to do about it, anyway? (Contrast this with Israel/Palestine where the US continues to arm Israel with relatively few conditions on the usage of those weapons)

I am curious how you think the US should handle its southern border? My understanding is most European nations similarly struggle with large influxes of refugees. This is a global crisis, and you have actual data about it because the US doesn't kill journalists who research it.

I'm not saying "America shouldn't trade with China because of what's going on within their borders." (We are a huge trade partner with China. We were a huge trade partner with Russia before they invaded Ukraine)

I do think it's reasonable for America to ban TikTok.

> This is obviously an over-the-top response.

I'm sorry, I thought we were having a conversation.

> is there forced sterilization at the US Mexico border?

check (it's still happening, we are simply not talking about it)

https://theconversation.com/forced-sterilization-policies-in...

> What about forced labor?

check

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/07/24/forced...

Now let's talk about segregation and eugenics politics that inspired the Hitler third reich and went on until the 1970s and are having a come back now with the resurgence of neo confederated ideologies and literally the KKK .

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-kkk-today/

Guess where it all happens?

a place with the largest incarcerated population of the world where the police is as brutal as in some developing country where the mob and drug cartels rule and where people shoot at each other at the same rate of countries at war.

For comparison in USA there are every year 20 thousands intentional homicides, while in China they are 7 thousand, but China has almost 4 times the population of the USA.

Would you use an app coming from such a place?

> And asked if you were familiar with these particular atrocities

It's not a genocide.

> I do think it's reasonable for America to ban TikTok.

I do also think it's reasonable for China to ban US social networks and Europe should do the same thing.

The World should do the same thing.

Now you have to explain how 2024 China relates to the Nazis, though.

Nazism is an 100% western creation, had many supporters in the west and in the USA, and Hitler himself was inspired by the segregation laws in the United States for his reich.

I'm not comparing China to it, it's just an extreme example. If you are such a free speech absolutist that you think all foreign-controlled media should be allowed (and encouraged to do business in your country), does that include the nazis? And if not, where do you draw the line?

> If you are such a free speech absolutist that you think all foreign-controlled

You said all, I never said all, I just said instead of the holocaust I prefer tik tok.

You are the one that prefers the holocaust to tik tok and has to live with it.

> where do you draw the line?

I'll gladly answer: I draw the line where illegal or seriously dangerous stuff is happening.

For example I would have banned any social network that promoted the so called "challenges".

But the tik tok case has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the fact that if the US cannot control the narrative, they do not want Americans to use it.

Which is the exact same thing the nazi did, back then.

They did not trust their people to make the right choices.

I have no idea where the "either you allow nazi tiktok or it's the holocaust" false dichotomy came from.

All principles have exceptions.

Just like how all normal people love free speech until it comes to CP and death threats (which of course should be banned).

> Propaganda isn't free speech.

Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? And propaganda coming from EU is fine I guess?

In this case the democratically elected US Congress.

> Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat?

Like most things in the EU it’s overly complicated, but I think sanctions are decided unanimously by the Council, which in this case would be assembled national ministers of foreign policy or security.

> Propaganda isn't free speech.

If free speech has exceptions it's not free speech. The government will keep adding exceptions.

This is just the paradox of tolerance, if you allow everything you won't be free for long.

You are misinterpreting Karl Popper.

Free speech should only stop on those trying to attack free speech. If anything, it applies in reverse here.

> This is just the paradox of tolerance, if you allow everything you won't be free for long.

This. As a nice clear-cut example see the propaganda being pushed on how Haitians were somehow eating everyone's pets. Even if someone somehow ignores the extremist call for violence, the fact that this propaganda campaign was targeting perfectly legal and legitimate immigrants should be very telling.

Your example has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance. At least not with Popper's version.

By the way, where was this meme pushed? TikTok? X? I don't think it has much to do with who controls a particular social network.

And if you have free speech without exceptions, foreign actors will see it as a weakness and use it to brain rot your society.

Yeah, the government loves to be the only one that can brain rot their (loved that you used the possessive pronoun!) society.

When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? I thought distrusting the government was American tradition?

I think we as Europeans would do better if we actually defended against Russia's hybrid warfare.

I understand all these principled stances and I do support them ethically, but sometimes you have no choice but to choose the lesser evil.

> When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government?

Technically speaking, they did in 1789. As to the practicality of it, the US government expanded massively from 1900-1950, so maybe during that time period. The FCC was formed in 1972, so on the issue of permissible purveyors of brain rot, maybe then.

Btw, I used “you” as a reference to the sovereign democracy society, not the government.

Shout fire in a crowded theater. Its literally the first example in that you aren't allowed to say anything you want whenever you want. You only have protection against government retaliation.

Or at least you're supposed to

In the US, shouting fire in a crowded theater is expressly allowed per Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969. It puzzles me why it is so often trotted out as an example of things you can’t say since we had a whole Supreme Court case that determined the opposite — it is arguing the losing side. The kind of speech that is disallowed in the US is very narrow, much narrower than people apparently assume.

The Chinese government does not have the right to free speech in this country. And since they are the ones controlling the algorithm that controls what people see on the app, then it's China speaking not the people who are posting.

The black box algorithms that are at the heart of TikTok and Instagram are very powerful and have the potential to be very dangerous mind control weapons, quite literally. It should all be blown up, but keeping that weapon from China is good.

In the US propaganda is free speech. We allowed enemies of the US to circulate Communist newspapers in America during the Cold War because we believe the people control the government not the government control the people

Guess we're not going to mention McCarthy...?

McCarthy is an example of witch hunts, I wouldn't use it as a positive example.

I'm just saying the US govt hasn't been historically that big on certain types of speech, for better or worse.

I think it’s more along the lines of the free market is great but if a foreign government has close control/ties with a pervasive social media business that it’s not great. Sounded like via an IPO they would have still had the ability to retain some ownership via the stock but would not longer have complete secret control.

So is it fine when China does it, just not when the U.S. does it?

It is never okay, but the rest of the world (and sensible Americans) sees it as hypocritical when the land of the free does it.

The US government should just go ahead and say it like it is: they'd like to hold as much power as the Chinese government does, and they're taking the steps to do so.

The American oligarchy feels threatened because the empire is crumbling under their feet, so they're finally taking their masks off.

I think the point is that China does not present itself as the paladin of free spech and individual liberties.

Chinese people and Chinese media businesses are not Americans. They are not protected by the constitution.

> So is it fine when China does it, just not when the U.S. does it?

What are you talking about? No US corporation can operate in China without granting China control over your data. I mean, anyone with a cursory understanding of the topic can tell you how China effectively forces internet companies to design their China presence as completely siloed operations with very tight requirements in what personally identifiable information they store.

The law states that it cannot be owned by a Chinese company. So they could be sold to owners in almost any other country (the law explicitly lists China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia as being banned.

Edit: text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs..., which references a different part of the statute for the list of countries here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

It’s interesting that they didn’t press the constitutionality of this. They fought over “free speech” where it’s more clear that this might be a bill of attainder or violation of the 14th amendment.

> It’s interesting that they didn’t press the constitutionality of this. They fought over “free speech” where it’s more clear that this might be a bill of attainder or violation of the 14th amendment.

Please explain in layman's terms why do you believe the 14th amendment applies to the federal government rejecting a corporation owned and controlled by a totalitarian regime from operating within the US.

> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I believe this applies to the USA as a whole as well, not just to states (Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) according to ChatGPT). One could argue the law is unconstitutional because it applies a punishment without due process.

“Citizens of the United States” and “person within its jurisdiction” don’t apply to the Chinese Communist Party.

Pretty sure it was a US company... probably owned by Chinese, but I haven't been following it super closely and can't see how that matters any bit. It's sad how much the US has changed in the last decade since I became an expat almost a decade ago.

> Pretty sure it was a US company... probably owned by Chinese (...)

ByteDance Ltd. is a Chinese internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance

I mean, literally right here in the first page of the arguments (page 4):

> First, TikTok incorporated as a U.S. company speaking in the United States.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...

I think you're confused.

The company being targeted is ByteDance, not TikTok. The US government wants ByteDance to sell it's controlling position on TikTok to someone else, or else TikTok can no longer operate in the US. ByteDance is a Chinese company that is a de-facto shell corporation of China's CCP. For the 14th amendment to apply, you would need to argue that either a Chinese corporation or China's CCP would be US citizens.

wdym - they’re literally taking it to court right now

> I believe this applies to the USA as a whole as well, not just to states (Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) according to ChatGPT). One could argue the law is unconstitutional because it applies a punishment without due process.

The 14th amendment applies to US citizens and persons. The law requires ByteDance to sell it's TikTok position. Who do you think is the US citizen or person in this case? China's CCP?

They tried the bill of attainder argument too.

The court of appeals thought about it and decided it wasn't. Start on page 59 of their ruling [0].

They tried to appeal this to the supreme court, the supreme court declined to hear that part of the case. See bottom of page 34 on their petition for a writ of certiorari [1].

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40...

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335257/20241...

Ah, interesting! I just read the arguments from the supreme court case and not the whole history of the thing.

Reading the appeals court case, it appears that they did agree with it being a bill of attainder but decided the national security implications overruled it?

> it appears that they did agree with it being a bill of attainder but decided the national security implications overruled it?

Not how I would phrase it.

A bill of attainder is two things, it targets a specific person, and it punishes them.

They decide the bill definitely targets TikTok, which is possibly close enough to a "specific person", but it doesn't punish them. Thus it doesn't satisfy the second prong and they don't have to even finish deciding the first prong and left the "possibly" in there.

National security really comes in when trying to decide it was a punishment. It's not a traditional punishment, but one of the other ways they could decide it was a punishment would be if it didn't further any purposes but punishment, and in this case the purpose it happens to further was national security. As far as I can tell this analysis would be the exact same if congress passed the bill instead because they decided TikTok was harming schools ability to keep order. It just has to be any non-punitive purpose.

As a layman who has held to deal with the law on more than one occasion in the US, I would say forcing you to divest or shutdown is a punishment; ie, something a court usually tells you to do when you commit fraud, not a congressman. I'm 99% sure it wouldn't be hard to find at least one congressman on TV saying this law specifically exists to target TikTok and shut it down.

Yeah, so I'm just paraphrasing the appeals court ruling above.

There's no dispute that this bill exists specifically to target TikTok, and that it will likely result in at least a temporary shut down, permanent if they choose not to divest.

Apparently there are a bunch of prior rulings on the meaning of "bill of attainder" though which say that that isn't within the typical meaning of punishment as used to define it. To quote just a bit of the courts recitation of previous cases

> See BellSouth I, 144 F.3d at 65 (explaining that although “structural separation is hardly costless, neither does it remotely approach the disabilities that have traditionally marked forbidden attainders”); see also Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 909 F.3d at 462–63 (comparing a law requiring the Government to remove from its systems a Russia-based company’s software to the business regulations in the BellSouth cases)

I'm not really knowledgeable about bills of attainder, but I think it might be useful to understand the distinction they're making to be one between "punishing" (the bill is, it hurts) and "punishment" (it's not because that's not the purpose, it's a side effect). There also appears to be a higher standard to qualify as punishing a corporate entity than an individual, which strikes me as a bit strange, but if I'm reading this right is settled law.

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal, it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it.

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way to it.

What this line argued in the Supreme Court in the oral arguments or in the opinion or in the lower court?

Obviously TT could not have brought this up, but the court could have brought it up while examining the government.

Both the Supreme Court and the appeals court went into quite a bit of detail as to the necessity of achieving what the government wanted, because it was relevant to justifying the impact on speech with regards to the first amendment.

Only the appeals court (and presumably the district court below them) heard arguments about it being a bill of attainder. The supreme court chose not to. With regards to being a bill of attainder the appeals court appears to be of the opinion that it is enough that it isn't a traditional punishment, and that the justification for it was something other than punishment, without analyzing whether the government had a legitimate interest in achieving their non-punishment purpose. Of course they had already found that they did have a legitimate interest because of the first amendment analysis, but I don't believe their opinion with regards to it not being a bill of attainder relied on that.

Did the supreme court examine government as to, if this was the only path available to achieve what it wanted?

Was it established that existing provisions of law is not sufficient to deal with the issue(perhaps not so easily as by fiat as in the new law, but requiring stricter standards of trial and evidence), necessitating this new law?

I don’t think it’s even close to a bill of attainder.

For one, it targets a class of companies operating from a collection of countries, not an individual person (and SCOTUS has never ruled on corporate personhood for the purposes of being a bill of attainder).

Secondly, the law in question does not declare a corporation guilty of any crime, it just offers restrictions on foreign control of certain businesses.

Third, the law targets non-American holdings, making it less likely that it could be considered a bill of attainder, since laws directly targeting foreign countries and agents thereof have been accepted in American law.

Thanks for your opinion? It would be nice if you explained why you think so.

That’s true. I’ve updated the post.

While your words make sense to me, I cannot wrap my head around viewing it that way. It clearly makes them post facto guilty of the crime of owning the company (which is also not constitutional) and their punishment is either divestiture or shutdown -- which is an actual punishment given out by courts, not congressmen.

First, you could say something similar about many restrictions.

If there is one steel monopoly and you ban being a monopoly then we can apply the same logic you have there.

To be completely fair, the “illegal part” of being a monopoly is not generally in the existence of the monopoly itself, but in the monopolistic actions the company may take. However, those actions may be a fundamental part of the function of the company, and I’d argue that country of ownership is another property that should be eligible for restriction.

Second, and _far_ more importantly, it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.

I would argue this is a bad example because it will lead into a conversation about monopolies, which is off-topic.

Restrictions are fine, but they need to apply broadly -- this law was specifically targeted at a single US entity, owned by a foreign entity. To me, who has only coarsely read up on this due to his account being cut off because I originally signed up with a US phone number when I lived in the US; it seems as though a bunch of rich people got mad that someone else in another country was getting rich.

Keep in mind that I am just now even caring about this situation, so I'm coming in with fresh eyes and limited history. In any case...

> it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.

Of course they can. My only issue is that they are targeting a specific entity and punishing them for being owned by someone in another country, which seems unconstitutional. If they targeted all companies, big or small, it would be different. I may not like it, but it wouldn't be questionable.

All companies owned by some specific countries are impacted by this law.

The whole idea of "corporate personhood" is a bit of a tortured way to describe Citizens United. It was introduced by the people (media and democrat lobbyists - the case was about a group that made a very negative documentary on Hillary Clinton) who had the most to lose from Citizens United and somehow stuck. There was never a ruling that corporations are people. The ruling in that case was more along the lines of "people don't lose fundamental rights by virtue of creating a corporation to exercise those rights." Calling that "corporate personhood" is a borderline misrepresentation, and leads to a lot of confusion when you think of other laws.

> people don't lose fundamental rights by virtue of creating a corporation to exercise those rights

No. That is even more manipulative way to put it. No one was "loosing fundamental rights", that part is a lie. What ruling did was to make corruption legal, if you create a corporation by virtue of corporate personhood.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The people involved in Citizens United could have done exactly what they did as individuals with some contractual money sharing agreements, and both sides of the case acknowledged that. Signing one little extra piece of paper makes the whole thing illegal corruption?

The actual case of Citizens United had exceptionally bad facts for the camp that thinks it's a bad ruling. The DNC should never have pushed it as far as they did, because it came right back at them like a ton of bricks.

In contrast, bringing it back to this case, communication over the internet involves many different business agreements to get internet service, rent computing, etc. Those relationships are within the US's power to regulate and legislate, especially when they cross its borders.

The demand is literally stated to American or allies company. So this is not true. But that’s what national interest protection looks like.

Look at Germany and Europe in general , they pay money to arm their aggressive neighbor, still not able to shield themselves from China. And asking US to protect Europe .

I don’t think Europe , giving the situation is in position to suggest about national interest protection. It’s like drug addict talk about healthy lifestyle

> [...] And asking US to protect Europe

To protect Europe from who...

Let's look at where we are with cold eyes (I'm European). Russian direct energy supplies to the EU have been cut, raising energy costs, all EU industries are affected, making it more difficult to compete with China and the US. Energy, which now comes also in part through expensive ships from the US, whom -surprise- is now able to threat to cut it off, increasing influence over EU politics, energy that it is now also paid with dollar currency, at the same time EU economic resources -that should be used for the internal development- are being asked to be diverged to buy US weapons through NATO.

So I would suggest to avoid the "US saving heroes" discourse. The reality sounds more like the US elite has benefited from the war (a big industry for them), so much that should be included within the suspicious list.

What pockets planned and backed up the Maidan rise that removed the Kremlin's puppet from power? Who aimed and intended such country to join NATO along years before this event?

Because can be guessed this aimed the psychopathic Putin to increase the violence of his mafia things, maybe someones expected this violence in invasion form, or another form that would drag Europe into the same position it is in now.

> Still not able to shield themselves from China

It would be interesting to read how one country has protected itself from China's dumping, among other things, considering the massive industrial companies and seaports the Chinese government already bought around the world, including the US.

> Russian direct energy supplies to the EU have been cut, raising energy costs

So the EU should have been more careful not to be too dependent on Russia? Maybe Germany should have avoided shutting down their nuclear reactors.

The idea that US should cut of our allies in Europe is stupid and insane but at the same time Europe made a lot of mistakes that it should learn from

> What pockets planned and backed up the Maidan rise that removed the Kremlin's puppet from power? Who aimed and intended such country to join NATO along years before this event?

No "one" planned it. It was a spontaneous grassroots movement that blew up when the authoritarian president tried to violently crack down on it.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/ukraines-maidan-revolution

> The consolation prize Yanukovych dangled before a liberal intelligentsia that hated him was the distant prospect of European integration. For a young generation in particular, “Europe” was the object of the greatest desire. In November 2013 Ukraine was expected to sign a long-anticipated association agreement with the European Union. At the eleventh hour, on 21 November 2013, Yanukovych refused.

> The disappointment was especially crushing for students, who felt as if their future had vanished; Europe would be closed to them. That evening a thirty-two-year-old Ukrainian journalist from Kabul named Mustafa Nayyem wrote in Russian on his Facebook page: “Come on, let’s get serious. Who is ready to go out to the Maidan by midnight tonight? ‘Likes’ don’t count.”

> That night Ukrainians—overwhelming students—came to the Maidan—and stayed. They held hands and shouted, “Ukraine is Europe!” At 4 am on 30 November 2013 Yanukovych sent his riot police to the Maidan to beat the students. The violence against peaceful protestors was a shock. Yanukovych, it seems, was counting on the shock to shake parents into pulling their kids off the streets. That was when something remarkable happened: instead of pulling their kids off the streets, the parents joined them there. It was a historic Aufhebung of Oedipal rebellion. Now there were close to a million people on the streets of Kyiv, and they were shouting, “We will not permit you to beat our children!”

>amend the rules

I dunno. I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough to get them to a) provide the actual fucking product, not some bastardized version that's intentionally bastardized to make people voluntarily keep using the evil version, AND b) not be evil. At the same time.

Look at apple with the payment shit. They managed to do neither a NOR b! The data privacy stuff usually has companies just opting out of serving the EU.

So, there's clearly a very hard problem here, of how do you make these entities whose sole goal is to maximize profit, who have managed to figure out a way that makes tons of profit while having the only "pollution" be the damage we do to our culture/dopamine receptors. Which is a lot harder to get people mad about compared to oil in the ocean and smog in the air.

In the meantime, I don't mind us just trying to keep things at least vaguely geopolitically aligned. Look at what russia is doing to US politics with very basic tactics (reddit comments etc). Now imagine China trying to do something actually subtle.

To underline the difference I'm referring to, just look at tiktok vs rednote. Western users immediately getting banned from rednote for posting the "wrong" kind of LGBT stuff. There are some fundamentally different cultural expectations about freedom of speech. Can you imagine how censored talking about vietnam would be if the US took the same approach as China did w.r.t. Tienanmen Square?

> I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough

It takes a lot of time to open political eyes, break through lobby barriers, and get sufficient awareness on the deep issues. Then it takes an age - in business terms - for governmental action and regulation to follow. But if that is ramping up inertia builds and prolonged policy follows, hopefully as unstoppable tide. Other than some decent government regulation and old-fashioned unfair competition protection there's talk talk talk and not much that restrains Big Tech and the maddened billionaire class.

An an American, I also find it outrageous. In fact, as I understand it, our most fundamental law (the Constitution) clearly guarantees "freedom of speech and freedom of the press" which specifically means that the government may NOT shut down a particular publisher because the government does not like what they say, or who it is that owns them.

Unfortunately, our Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with me about what our Constitution requires.

The Constitution does not guarantee any rights to the Chinese government.

However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. Of course, if the law is (arbitrarily) changed to make this illegal due to the Chinese government's stake, then it could be forced to shut down, but that would be inconsistent with the constitution.

> However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law.

ByteDance is a Chinese company with it's headquarters in China. The so-called TikTok ban is a call for ByteDance to sell off it's controlling position over TikTok, otherwise TikTok can no longer operate in the US.

The fact that China is spinning this issue as a TikTok ban is telling.

What would you call Tesla not being able to sell cars in China unless sold to a Chinese company - what might you call that? :)

I'd call it "the way things actually were from 1994 until 2022": https://www.carscoops.com/2021/12/china-will-no-longer-requi...

so not “ban”? :)

Giga Shanghai opened in 2019 while that was still in effect, so no, not "ban".

If they want to do that, of course they can. (And indeed, Chinese car companies are already treated differently in US law to such an extent that they aren't in the US market at all.)

You didn't say why that would be inconsistent with the Constitution, you merely asserted that it is. But it isn't.

Our government gets to decide the terms under which businesses operate in this country. Always has and always will. This is not a constitutional question.

TikTok's problem isn't with what they say openly, it's with the amount of invisible control exerted by a foreign government.

Which they exert through promotion or demotion of speech. In the end it's still a free speech issue in my mind.

Foreign governments don't have a right to free speech in the US. They never have and the very idea is absurd. It's getting really tiresome to have to repeat this.

Not necessarily. China pursues many objectives when it comes to its national security, such as intimidation and coercion of dissidents or opponents of its regime living abroad. Assuming China's equivalent of the Patriot act lets it treat TikTok user data as an open book, there is a lot for them to learn from it.

Isn't this like saying a popular newspaper should be banned because of what they choose to put on the front page?

It is exactly that, but you'll see a lot of mental gymnastics to try to bend around it, or they'll just mask off say "Eh, gotta fight fire with fire"

No, it's like banning a newspaper because it is operated by Chinese intelligence agencies, regardless of what it publishes.

No. Unlike a newspaper, they host videos and photos of a third of (?) the US population, have detailed reader data on who reads what when, who is friends with whom, location history, etc.

This data treasure trove may be stored in US, but it isn't protected from Chinese govt access. It is the same for data by American companies, which US Patriot act lets the US govt access.

> shut down a particular publisher because the government does not like what they say, or who it is that owns them.

I don’t see where that’s in the constitution.

Does the constitution apply everywhere?

We take the global world for granted, but it is made up of sovereign states many of them have their own constitution.

This constant conflation of speech rules and trade rules is tiresome.

If it was just about content then yes, it'd be unconstitutional.

But security/trade concerns about a geopolitical opponent are not the same thing, have never been the same thing, and it would be crazy to treat them as the same thing.

Not to mention that as a trade issue, China already bans basically all the popular American social media sites, and just a ton of popular US sites in general. Turnabout is entirely fair play and expected when it comes to trade.

The CCP does not have freedom of speech in America and it's not press. China has banned American apps including Google, Facebook, etc for decades at this point btw.

From a historic standpoint, rights are peacetime luxuries.

The US sees China as an existential threat and TikTok is one of its key weapons. Tiktok is getting banned for the same reason Cuba can't have nukes. It's a national security concern.

I don't endorse it. But I understand it.

America blundered in the 80s by allowing technology transfer to then and still hostile foreign power. It has woken up to its stupidity 45 years too late. But better late than never.

It's not fair.....but love and war Yada yada.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the constitution only applies to American citizens, not corporations, and certainly not foreign citizens.

The ban on a communications platform effectively censors people's speech.

Actually, that would be considered a “time, place, and manner” restriction, which has been specifically ruled to be not a violation of the First Amendment.

Interesting. But the time here is basically "indefinitely", the place one that affects 150m+ people, and the manner the most draconian possible. Not a lawyer, but that seems like overreach to me.

I'd say it's more banning of specific communication platform like radio station since other similar type services could be developed and we have already seen attempts with IG reels and YouTube Shorts.

Also, censorship has been allowed by courts time and time again if it's narrow focused to satisfy compelling government interest and not overly broad.

The American citizens responsible for the US part of the business are

The whole thing is moot when you can be banned from platforms for voicing certain speech.

If platforms can do censorship, so can the government.

We already do that in the electoral process. Campaign contributions are "speech," while at the same time we ban foreign nationals from such speech (although as far as I know the constitutionality of the issue has not been tested beyond the 9th Circuit.)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/05/16/1...

They don't have to shut down. They can simply divest.

We don't allow own telephone system to be foreign owned, and those laws have been around for 90 years, and nobody is crying about free speech over that.

I thought that according law they are distributors, not publishers. That’s how they avoid liability for all the damage they do. They really try to have it both ways

You can't have this take without acknowledging the US is currently in a technological cold war with China. It's not old school at all, they've been hacking our infrastructure and stealing proprietary data from corporations for years (and vice versa, no doubt).

Having a direct adversary control what young people consume for hours a day with a black-box algorithm is very dangerous.

Also note that TikTok has been banned in Hong Kong for years now.

I also think it's dangerous for domestic companies to do this, but obviously the US gov't is going to prioritize China because politicians can take bribes (in the form of lobbying) domestically.

US was doing the same thing to its own citizens. refer Zuck's podcast with Joe Rogan. The DeepState used carrot and stick approach to make Zuck kneel. They would have destroyed Meta if Zuck didn't succumb to their demands.

Yep definitely, the US does it all the time... but there's a big difference between doing it to yourself vs having your enemy do it to you.

Like Didi / Uber in China?

As a European born in communism, I find it dangerous for a communist and despotic state to yield so much power and for Europe to consider it business as usual, even if China may have started their own hybrid war with Europe, supporting Russia and preparing for the invasion of Taiwan.

China, BTW, is censoring or blocking all Western social media platforms and online publications. Why should we accept their online services when they are blocking ours?

Say what you will of USA, but they are allies and Europe needs to grow the f* up and stop being so tolerant of despotic countries, because our money and resources are fuelling their wars.

I understand that you're afraid of the US yielding so much power online, but then propose a European alternative, not a Chinese one. Let's innovate instead of complaining about US's tech hegemony, as right now all I'm seeing are complaints and regulations for tech we aren't building.

As a European born in communism, you think if a communist country censors our information, we should censor theirs? Hard to believe.

Compare with China though. There is absolutely no way that a company like Bytedance would be allowed to operate inside China while under American control.

Correct. All the popular US social media sites are fully banned in China.

As of today, they would not be following American law by continuing to operate. The rules were amended by writing a new law that they're now following.

> too successful and valuable to be foreign-held

That’s a thoroughly disingenuous spin on the reasoning.

There is no movement to prevent foreign companies from having popular apps in general. The law is narrowly targeted. TikTok could continue to be foreign-held as long as they separated from the government of a specific foreign country.

I’m amazed at how many commenters are twisting themselves into pretzels to try to make this some generic imperialist move or use whataboutism to downplay the reasoning behind this move.

A decade ago it was common knowledge on the internet that China heavily controlled and shaped internet discourse within their reach, to push government agendas in an extreme way. There is no parallel to their cultural control in the US. Did everyone suddenly forget this, or are they just ignoring it for the sake of argument?

I found your angle very interesting. I'm baffled by the same thing. Is it that a new generation (that is now < 30) grew up without realising this? I wonder what is the age of average commenter here.

After reading more comments, I think this comment section is just full of people who only read the headlines and then assume the rest, rather than try to read the articles or understand what’s going on.

Whether you agree with the move or not, the storylines being pushed in hundreds of comments here don’t even reflect the reality of the law, let alone the reasoning behind it.

It’s also ironic to read all of the commenters that don’t realize that China already controls social media use within their own country to a degree far more strict than this. The amount of control that China exerts over everything from Facebook to Google within their country was a well known topic for years online. Here on HN people were disgusted that FB and others were giving in to government censorship in those countries. Now it all seems to be forgotten? It’s weird to me to see all of the narratives in this comment section being built on top of imagined realities with no regard for how other countries have been operating for decades.

Forget about reading articles even... the supreme court decision itself is not long, is written in understandable language, and breaks down point by point the things that they had to consider, why they had to consider them, and the outcome of that consideration.

Also, Beijing seems happy to help the drug cartels that sell into the US make fentanyl and help them launder their profits.

> demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held

This is a reductive and misleading analysis. The US has already prohibited foreign entities from holding broadcast/common carrier licenses, or from owning significant chunks of equity in holders of those licenses [1]. It should be kind of obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned.

You could argue that if the US wants to update the 1934 telecommunications act for the 21st century, it should do so more thoughtfully and comprehensively (I would agree). But the TikTok ban, however poorly written or haphazardly targeted, is fairly in line with a legal doctrine that has been commonly known and accepted for 90 years.

[1]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...

> obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned.

And yet many countries have no objection with letting their citizens use US FAANG services?

They should, and they should develop home-grown alternatives to these services. It's not that Tiktok shouldn't be banned, it's that Facebook and Twitter should also be banned. Megacorps should to be destroyed up regardless of their nation of origin.

> Megacorps should to be destroyed

In your view:

a) what is a megacorp (criteria), and

b) why do you think they should be destroyed?

For reference, the largest 15 companies in the world, by:

- Market cap are: Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Saudi Aramco, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, TSMC, Berkshire Hathaway, Walmart, JPMorgan, Eli Lilly, Visa

- by # of employees: Walmart, Amazon, Foxconn, Accenture, VW, Tata, DHL, BYD, Compass, Jingdong, UPS, Gazprom, Home Depot, JD Logistics, Agricultural Bank of China.

- by earnings: Saudi Aramco, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, NVIDIA, JP Morgan Chase, Meta, Amazon, ICBC, China Construction Bank, China Pacific Insurance, Exxon Mobil, Agricultural Bank of China, Toyota

https://companiesmarketcap.com/

I don't think megacorps should be "destroyed". On the other hand, I do think that a whole lot of those countries grew up taking advantage of mechanisms and data that they seek to exclude others from having by use of their market power and restrictive contracts, and this should be prevented.

E.g. back to Meta, etc: they scraped everything, everywhere for a long time, and it was a big factor that lead to their rise. Now they seek to control all the data in their fiefdom, and use the power of the legal system to enforce EULAs to prevent others from doing the same.

Why? Because economic entities with market power underproduce, overcharge, and fail to innovate and meet their customers' needs. They cause deadweight losses through their inefficiencies. And an excess of concentrated power is just plain scary, whether an individual, a corporation, or a government wields it.

Of course, reducing some of the edge of market power at scale will result in a smaller maximum company size.

A) I'm flexible on the exact numbers here, but a starting point for discussion could be a company with more than 20% market share in a total market above 1% GDP. I admit that finding an effective standard that can withstand legal scrutiny is the hard part here, and we should work on improving it once we agree that megacorporations should be destroyed. I am still looking for a good way to cover vertical integration and other multi-market failure cases, for example.

- Small business should be the driving force in the economy. They are the wellspring of competition and the bastion of the middle class.

- Megacorporations seek to destroy the ability for small businesses to compete with them, leaving buyout or vassalage as their only possible endgame. This shuts down true competitive threats to the megacorporations' dominance. They are trying to pull up the ladder behind them.

- A company should not be so large it can afford to ignore its customers.

- A company should not be so large that it can treat regulatory fines as merely a cost of doing business.

- A company should not be so large that it gets to write the laws and regulations.

- The Monopoly standard is not strict enough. Cartel-like oligopolies cooperate on the important political issues while maintaining a facade of competition.

- Our political systems are not equipped to handle the centralization of such large amounts of wealth. While the economy may not be a zero-sum game, power is, and power follows money.

- ADDED: A company must not be too big to fail.

- ANOTHER: A company should not be so large it can use loss-leaders to bully its way into other markets.

Those criteria seem pretty good. All those companies should be broken up and required to make certain divestitures until they no longer to-big-to-fail, oligarchical, anti-competitive etc.

They are banned, in China.

yeah can’t get too many people working on the same thing or creating value, that’d be bad and we’d have to destroy it

Pretty much every country where it is economically viable to build an alternative has an alternative to these platforms that they aggressively push on their citizens.

Europe may be an exception, but that is what you get when the US is your suzerain.

> but that is what you get when the US is your suzerain.

Hopefully the next 4 years help change that.

China bans them. Europe, Canada and Australia are constantly trying to regulate the media parts of the business. If they had the capacity to built an alternative (like china) a ban or forced divestiture doesn’t seem that out there.

Every country on earth "has the capacity" to build alternative social networks. They just don't because the need hasn't become obvious enough yet.

The set of countries that don't actively object to that is a strict subset of the countries the TikTok bill would have allowed TikTok to continue operating from if ownership had been passed to them.

This was a bill only against China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. None of whom allow particularly free access to the internet.

For example the Facebook article on "Censorship of Facebook" lists all of those countries as well as Myanmar, Turkmenistan, and Uganda as the only countries that "continually ban access" to facebook.

The countries targeted by this law (China, North Korea, Iran, Russia) generally do have objections to their citizens using US services.

Not China though.

I would not be surprised if governments pushing back against all foreign social media is a major theme of the decade. America is basically saying to the world right now foreign social media companies are a major risk. The global reach of America's social media companies could be coming to an end.

They’re only saying this specific one is and how long did it take for that to pass through legislature and courts?

It’s not always a slippery slope. And China's use of soft power via strict governmental control of its corporations isn’t an imaginary boogeyman.

No, they set up a framework where any other such case can be easily included in the ban. The executive order doesn't even name TikTok, except when referring to now-revoked previous things it revoked.

> (d) The Secretary of Commerce shall evaluate on a continuing basis trans- actions involving connected software applications that may pose an undue risk of sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, produc- tion, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States; pose an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of the critical infra- structure or digital economy of the United States; or otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons. Based on the evaluation, the Secretary of Commerce shall take appropriate action in accordance with Executive Order 13873 and its implementing regulations.

Twitter/X had a hard time in Brazil recently and was temporarily banned. Meta is now feeling more intense pushback from Brazil's judiciary power.

> And yet many countries have no objection with letting their citizens use US FAANG services?

You're talking out of ignorance. The European Commission has been putting together initiatives to allow European cloud providers to emerge as credible alternatives to the FANGs in terms of providing infrastructure.

https://european-alternatives.eu/category/cloud-computing-pl...

Not that it's the only factor, but don't forget that for many countries, seemingly going "against" the US is very hard. Whoever feels like the US never puts pressure on western countries is probably a US citizen.

> The US has already prohibited foreign entities from holding broadcast/common carrier licenses, or from owning significant chunks of equity in holders of those licenses

But you don't need a license to put something on the internet. And Americans don't want everything on the Internet to be regulated and censored the way TV and radio are.

It IS wrong for them to determine what we can and can't be influenced by. By saying bad countries "influencing" us is bad for democracy, they are saying democracy isn't really up to us, the voters, it's up to them. And I'll never accept that.

When China does it, it's authoritarian. But when the USA does it, it is to protect our freedoms. It's totally different! /s

> But you don't need a license to put something on the internet. And Americans don't want everything on the Internet to be regulated and censored the way TV and radio are.

The end result of your line of thought isn't the return of TikTok, it's the creation of an internet hosting licensing scheme in the US.

> But you don't need a license to put something on the internet. And Americans don't want everything on the Internet to be regulated and censored the way TV and radio are.

Whether you _should_ need a license to distribute a media app in the US under certain conditions, and whether “Americans” (which ones?) really do want no limits on who controls their media, is the correct debate to be having. The person I was responding to believed the issue to be “US demands local ownership of TikTok just because it's successful and valuable” which is clearly wrong.

This is a great argument for the rest of us banning nearly all US social media tech from our countries. Frankly I'd support it given the new US government.

Especially with our billionaires openly declaring they are working with the oncoming administration because other powers like the EU trying to enforce their laws within their borders. China is just on top of the game since they are a provider instead of a consumer.

China and Russia and others like them are definitely way ahead. And the way I see this going is that countries take their digital borders far more seriously in the future. The era of the open internet is gone, and I don't particularly think it should be mourned.

Digital borders should only be open and allow free traffic between allies.

edit: since it won't let me reply to posters under here. What I mean is in stopping foreign propaganda and interference. Elon Musk can't spend hundreds of millions to influence e.g. the Chinese people in ways that benefit the US.

I don't think many people separate out the "incoming" and "outgoing" aspects of firewalls, and conflate firewalls with censorship. Most of the countries that employ firewalls do both, censor as well as protect. But it's not a requirement that you must censor your own people in order to stop foreign agents interfering in your society.

This is quite literally what banning TikTok is about. Suddenly the US has decided that they don't like it when other countries do to them what the US routinely does to others.

What do you mean by way ahead?

US owns most of the social networks, video streaming platforms and most of the classic media (tv,...).

The diffrence is, that countries like US (and many EU countries) point a finger at china/russia and accuse them of censorship, claim themselves to be free, and then do the same censorship that russia/china do.

> Digital borders should only be open and allow free traffic between allies.

Oh, how far we have fallen.

> Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

Nation states saw this, laughed, and proceeded to colonize the Internet almost immediately. The US is notable for (until recently) being the most open, but China basically never allowed unrestricted international network traffic. In fact, I honestly think China shouldn't have been allowed onto the global Internet on the basis of "no free speech for censors".

Especially when these companies soak up millions to billions of $$$s in ad spending and pay close to zero tax.

Exactly. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The EU should be watching this closely.

When I do a search on Google I give Google information. When Google gives me the results I get information. This data exchange or information barter involves “value” but no money is exchanged. Thus no taxes. This happens billions of times daily across all social media platforms. The analogy above is that data is gold is not far from reality and the data economy is mostly untaxed.

I think focussing on the micro is also a distraction here. An individuals data has almost no marginal value. But if you aggregate everyone's data then it does become valuable. This is why the whole 'just pay me for my data' argument never works.

By extension focussing on the negative impact on an individual is very small, but the overall impact on society and culture is massive (which in turn impacts individuals).

Taking that a step further I think you can argue there is some tragedy of the commons occurring which indicates govt. regulation should exist. Govt regulating media is tough, but as the US showing here, a rule getting rid of foreign actors might be a good idea for many countries.

And nothing of value would be lost. Just like with TikTok “going dark”.

Wouldn't that eliminate 90% of social media in your country?

...and nothing of value would be lost.

Yes, which is wonderful as new alternatives would grow. It's not like this stuff is rocket science, it's pretty trivial to build.

You make that sound like it's a bad thing. There's extremely little genuine value left in social media platforms to the average user these days. Most are completely focused on getting you to want to doom scroll, not actually connect with friends.

Maybe its time to go back to a simpler MySpace or FriendsReunited style setup for actual social media. The problem is theres not much money in that, nor are people likely to visit as regularly.

You could still have "X Germany" or whatever, that cross-syndicates content with other "X $COUNTRY" companies. But it would be a local company, under the jurisdiction of local laws -- and that seems to be the point.

Do it

It is my limited understanding that's the case in China?

The point being that there are countries other than the US and China.

Given that Elon Musk is supporting neo-Nazis in Germany,[0] banning Twitter/X is not a bad idea.

0. The neo-Nazis in question are the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The AfD has many high-ranking members with neo-Nazi pasts, such as the leader of the party in the state of Thüringen, Björn Höcke, who used to write for a neo-Nazi publication under a pseudonym, "Landolf Ladig" (remind you of any other name?). This guy now runs the AfD in the state of Thüringen, the state where the AfD performs the best, electorally (33%, making them the largest party in the state). There are many other high-ranking AfD members with similar neo-Nazi pasts and affiliations. Then there are those who merely go on and on about immigrants, foreigners, minorities, but who are smart enough not to have explicitly associated themselves with open neo-Nazis. Needless to say, the fact that this sort of party is reaching 33% in some parts of the country is hugely concerning in Germany.

It is and EU started doing this more than a decade ago and has come fairly far. GDPR and other privacy focused regulation made great strides in restricting what US platforms are allowed to do in EU, and for government institutions there has been some movement away from US owned cloud services as a matter of national security and data protection. So far the reaction for US companies has been mostly to setup EU-only versions, or policies where data remains on EU located servers, but there was also a lot of "threats" about Facebook leaving EU or other sites blocking EU users as a response to those regulations.

The next round of regulations, NIS2 for example, is starting to get up steam. This year we also have the Digital Services Act. Time will tell if US media platforms continue to develop EU-versions, and in what forms, or if they give up.

In term of national security I would be a bit more afraid of Microsoft 365 than Meta.

> obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned

Tt's obvious why the state would not want it. It's not obvious why "country" would not want it.

The thing is that you dont get the same free market in China.

Can you even own a company in China? Not to mention anything uncensored?

They don't have to sell it, they can simply choose not to operate in the US.

If Zuckerberg, or Musk (X), or Reddit, or Snap, or HN, or any Western platform would want to operate in China, they'd have to hand over control to a Chinese company. Instead, they simply don't operate there.

> "The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards".

It's been blatantly obvious since the beginning of time that the free market isn't a thing.

Foreign ownership of massive media platforms has been awful. The other way around as well. Would be fantastic if the EU banned Meta, for one. Instead they're suddenly scared of continuing to fine them for their continuous illegal data harvesting and gatekeeping to cozy up to Trump.

Just consider Rupert Murdoch. Every country he's been active in would have been better off if he'd been straight up banned from owning local media companies.

It's not just broadcasting of info, it's having information on your location, contacts, comments, biometric data, etc. It's the reason why the military banned it first. It can definitely be a national security threat.

They don't need their own app for that. American companies are more than happy to sell all of that to the highest bidder.

It's ridiculous. Who made their now so called adversary? Who shifted production to them?

I don’t think it really matters. The fact is there is now a semi-adversarial relationship.

they didn't demand it be sold to the US. they just said it can't be owned by china, NK, Russia, Iran. a European company could buy it and everyone could keep using it.

> they didn't demand it be sold to the US. they just said it can't be owned by china, NK, Russia, Iran.

On that note, I wonder if the same approach should apply to Elon Musk's Twitter takeover.

It would be a no-op.

"Twitter cannot be Chinese (or NK etc) owned."

OK, done.

It has too much influence for China to hold. Let’s be clear if an EU country held Bytedance this would not be an issue.

Really this is about not allowing China to do things and then not retaliating in kind. This is what China does to American companies and so no American company can really survive long term in China. It creates an imbalance and will eventually lead to China’s complete domination in most key industries. America is finally catching on.

I think we can just cut the crap and say, now the gloves have been taken off. It's a jungle. Let's grab whatever we can.

I mean it has always been like this anyway, just with some gloves. There is no law above the states(elites).

And that is exactly what we don't want. We want civilized law based international relations not a jungle.

International courts should settle disputes based on law

It's a good thought without practical implementation. How does the international law enforce anything?

Actually, why do you pay tax if you don't have to and there is no IRS or whatever agency chasing you?

Why are you looking to the US for your outrage, EU members are doing the exact same thing:

"Eleven EU countries took 5G security measures to ban Huawei, ZTE "

https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/12/eleven-eu-countries...

It's not quite the same. The EU has banned those companies from supplying network infrastructure. That infrastructure is used both by private individuals and by companies, ministers etc. AFAIK they have also banned TikTok on official government phones. However they have not generally banned TikTok for everyone.

To me this makes more sense since a back door in network infrastructure allowing governement communications to be intercepted is far more serious than some kid using TikTok.

> AFAIK they have also banned TikTok on official government phones. However they have not generally banned TikTok for everyone.

The US is not banning TikTok. The US is forcing ByteDance to sell it's controlling position on TikTok or else the company is no longer able to operate within the US.

How come the critical bit is repeatedly left out?

"I did not shoot this person: I asked this person to give me all their money or else I would shoot them."

No. The requirement is that ByteDance must sell it's position of a company. If you bother to learn about the law in question, it quite blatantly targets the ownership of the company, not the company itself.

ByteDance instead opted to shut the company down in retaliation, because it found it was desirable to just crash the whole company than to have anyone else control it, and in the process is fooling useful idiots into believing this has nothing to do with China's interference.

Did you just call me an idiot?

Saying "It is not a ban because if they give it to us then we won't ban it, but if they don't we will ban it but it still won't be a ban because they had a choice in the first place" sounds so ridiculous to me that I don't even know how to argue here.

They haven't banned the Huawei smartphones, have they?

As a European, I think it makes sense to ban it. The threat is not the same from American companies.

I think Europe should ban the US social media as well as the Chinese ones.

Look at the list of sites banned in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...

Did you notice something similar about those companies, of which TikTok is included?

Social media is not normal capitalism - it’s defense industry psychological warfare tooling. We’re seeing this play out big time in the Israeli and Ukrainian conflicts right now and it’s time to take a wartime approach to the issue.

It’s important to note that media companies in China are required to have a Chinese partner who holds a majority stake, typically 51% or more.

It’s not like TikTok is competing on the open market. They have massive financial backing irrespective of how much money they lose.

China is not just foreign, it’s a rising superpower who has demonstrated ongoing information and cyber attacks against the US, and who has a stated goal of invading Taiwan. It attempts to dislodge the US or West influence wherever possible. That’s different to eg Germany, France or Japan.

Playing fair is fine, so rather ask for level playing fields. Where there aren’t, apply pressure. Compared to arming other countries this is barely worth a big argument.

They did it before. See for example the history of Merck, a German pharma company during WW1.

> The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards.

I think that's the actual reasoning. Be mindful that USA is our ally but they'll always prefer their own interest and that's normal.

> because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held

That is not the reason at all. I highly doubt if it was made in Europe, it would be banned.

China would never allow a TikTok equivalent to operate in China, which is smart. We should do the same.

As a European I noticed all the neo-authoritarian Russia supporters crying on X and BlueSky and therefore support the US ban on Tiktok. I am usually against the EU frenchies making up new regulations but they get a pass if they manage to ban Tiktok.

China banned Youtube in 2009. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Eh-- Interjecting one's own opinion arguably amounts to intellectual imperialism.

Imperialism is a part of life-- whether it's mold in a petri dish, prides of lions or chimpanzees raiding neighbors.

We live in the wild where strength conquers. It's just that we forget that when we're insulated from reality by convenience, comfort, concrete, and naivete.

No one should be ashamed for conquering or for exercising their own strength to their own benefit. Only those unable to do so are the ones to complain. And the complaints are futile-- Resource Competition is a fact of life and it is not going away.

(American here.)

I don't think I'd support a ban if ByteDance was a European company or Indian or South Korean or Japanese. China is a unique threat given the totalitarian turn they've taken over the past decade combined with the fact that no Chinese company is truly private in its day-to-day operations. All Chinese companies must have CCP influence as a matter of Chinese policy. It would be like if T-Mobile (the US mobile division of Deutsche Telekom) was required to have the influence of the German government including the monitoring and reporting of phone calls to senior party officials.

As a European, you are allowed to feel however you want. As an American, I am allowed not to care.

> As a European, I find it quite outrageous to demand a company be sold to the US because it is too successful and valuable to be foreign-held.

These sorts of bad faith comments are so tiresome to read.

We all know that if the foreign country in question was Japan or France then nobody would really give a shit. Even a more neutral country like India or Brazil would likely be completely fine. It's specifically an issue because China is a geopolitical opponent of the US that we're engaged in a sort of new cold war with.

Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already, and a bunch of other websites and apps besides. Tit-for-tat is very common in trade, you can't expect other countries to leave your foreign ventures untouched if you heavily restrict theirs.

How come Xiaomi is not banned in the US? Only the most successful commercially get banned, but that's solely for national security, right? /s

> Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already

And the US is usually pretty good at criticising that. But apparently not so good at accepting when other criticise the US for doing the same.

Is your argument seriously, "yeah but if the US doesn't ban things as hard as China, it doesn't count"?

Personally I'd love for the US to ban or restrict more things from China. Not because that's the end state I want, but maybe it'd get China to loosen restrictions so that we'd get closer to parity.

No. My point is that the US is hypocritical about this. Every excuse is found to not call this protectionism. It is protectionism, period.

If Huawei smartphones are a national security threat that justifies a ban, then Xiaomi smartphones are as well. But those are not banned. Why? Because the ban is more for protectionism than for security reasons. Just own it, that's fine.

> Every excuse is found to not call this protectionism. It is protectionism, period.

Agreed, it's a trade issue. And anyone who's been paying even a hint of attention to trade knows that China is WAY more protectionist about foreign companies than the US is.

Reciprocity is or should be part of trade. There is nothing hypocritical about responding to trade restrictions with trade restrictions, any more than responding to an invasion with your own military force is "hypocritical".

> There is nothing hypocritical about responding to trade restrictions with trade restrictions

That's right, but that's not what I said. I keep having to explain it so I'll do it again: what feels hypocritical is that the US don't call those bans trade issues. They call them "national security". If you keep saying "we're the land of the free, China is bad because of their protectionism" and then you do protectionism and say "no no no, we are not doing protectionism, it's national security", then it is hypocritical.

This is the most disappointing part. We've let some of our companies do sketchy stuff because it's so hard to see where a new ecosystem will go ahead of time, and really hard to roll back popular ecosystems. But finally we have the political will to make a change for the better, and instead of ruling that 'oh turns out it is bad to allow XYZ, so here are some new rules preventing XYZ,' we're ruling that 'oh turns out it is bad to allow XYZ, so here are some new rules saying only I get to do XYZ.'

You shouldn’t. Lest we forget, China has banned all American social media companies and quite a few other tech companies. Why shouldn’t the US do the same? Red Note should probably be banned too. The condition to lift the ban? Allow google, facebook, snap, etc in China. Until that day, I don’t understand why this is even a question.

I am fine with the US doing protectionism, it's their choice. But they should own it. Not always play the kings of freedom, with freedom being systematically defined as "whatever is best for the US".

It’s not even protectionism. US is the only country in the world to honor unwritten free market rules. Simply because people here believe in it. All we want is reciprocity. US is not protecting the Googles and Facebooks of the world. No one told the RoW to have restrictive politics that kill innovations to the extent that their best talent rather come to the US to pursue their dreams.

What’s also outrageous is that while there is no proof that the CCP is using TikTok for nefarious purposes in EU/US (at least for now), there is evidence of the owner of X using his power to influence European elections in many EU countries, while spreading misinformation and fake news himself. But we can’t ban it in the EU because our security-reliant master won’t allow it.[1]

1. https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-nato-support-eu-reg...

That’s rich coming from Europe. You guys pillaged rest of the world for 700 years. Took all the gold from the Americas then proceeded enslave Africans for centuries. And normalized it. Play by the rules? What rules?

This is par for the course worldwide and for the U.S. in particular. Nothing really new here.

Nobody was demanding that it be sold to the US. There are almost 200 countries in the world, and all but 4 of them would have been fine.

I'm really curious and somewhat worried about what the economic effect of this is going to be. There are a number of legitimate small businesses that saw a lot of, if not all of, their business and customer base through TikTok. Business that just will not be able to make the move to somewhere else.

I personally know musicians, actors, and artists that got a lot of work through TikTok. People who actually create things, and people who just used the app to make ends meet who probably aren't going to make ends meet this month

There are other properties to pivot to. ByteDance had the chance to sell, the access to data that even credit bureaus would want is too much for a foreign adversary.

Are there? Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are awful in comparison to the TikTok experience. Red Note is funny, but not really a replacement. Nobody is going to go to Snap.

We utilize every platform equally. TikTok organically grew at least 5x the followership for our business, meanwhile Meta gouges us for advertising to be seen at all and we see worse results and interactions there.

No, these options are not truly equal, and many businesses will suffer.

You should never be fully reliant on a single corporate platform if you make a living selling goods or services.

You can be fully aware of this and still have issues building up your platform elsewhere.

The ban of TikTok will have resounding effects even if people are utilizing the alternatives. I've seen far too many people who haven't used TikTok and the alternatives for their business, or are not business owners at all, declare their opinions as facts when they have no actual experience in this space.

I'm not saying this explicitly includes you, I don't make presumptions about your experience in this space.

Regardless, the parent is correct. If you're reliant on a single platform, for whatever reasons, you're vulnerable to being fucked over by that platform. Practically speaking, how is TT being banned different than being arbitrarily banned from TT?

And we put PayPal and Google on blast every time they ban a creator because they are more than one of many, they’re the main place everyone goes.

No, we don't. Most of the people affected end up just moving on. It's only a few rare instances where someone has enough of an audience to 'put them on blast'.

That's because most of the users are there. Now they will go somewhere else, and you can utilize whatever becomes the next big platform.

Which will be impossible if people stop using cash.

They had plenty of time to figure this out.

There's nothing inherently special about TikTok. It just happens to be the hot social media platform right now. There were plenty before it and there will be plenty after it. There will be a short period of adjustment and eventually everyone will move on to something else. People aren't going to stop listening to music or buying things.

Are you sure about this? I've heard many many times that tiktok is uniquely good at discovery for new businesses.

yeah, tiktok really was (is?) something special because unlike other platforms, their algorithm really increased people's reach out beyond their own community.

youtube shorts and instagram reels seem like they do the same thing on the surface, but they're so much more focused on showing you content that they are certain you'll like, and from people in your network or people who you normally watch. they're a whole lot more focused on keeping people in their existing content silos.

It's the exact reason the platform economy has gotten such a bad rep over the years; drawing people in, taking a (disproportionate) slice of the pie, and providing no guarantees for a sustained income upon disruption.

That would be a very good reason why a corporate influence dominated government would want to shut them down.

Because TikTok is where the hip young demographic is. If they all move to say Instagram Reels en masse then Instagram will be the platform that is uniquely good for discovery among that audience.

And let's not pretend that TikTok is filled to the brim with high quality products and small businesses. Yes there may be a couple of feel good stories about a local pizza place or small band that got their big break because of TikTok, but 99.9% of the advertising there is for the same junk/scam products that are on every other influencer-driven app.

How many times has YouTube recommended a your next video something with zero comments and maybe 10 views.

I cannot count how many times minute I’ve been the first to see or comment on a TikTok video.

It let small creators be shown to lots of people in a way no other platform does.

YouTube does this for me relatively frequently.

Genuinely glad to hear it. I almost always get something I’ve already seen before when I let it auto-play.

i don't know if it does it on auto play, i typically see a "rising video" in a top slot on the homepage. i think its also based on what it thinks you might like so not everyone may get them.

I explicitly disabled YouTube’s and extra layers of tracking. Ironically, it should still be able to track off my upvoted and playlists, it just doesn’t, unless it’s playing on my TV and then suddenly it can again and that’s when I sometimes (though only hours and hours later) get new stuff.

if you don't save your watch history, yeah, it probably doesn't bother using you for this feature

Maybe I should allow YT to save my watch history, then. I have found it frustrating that it refuses to use any of the other indicators (upvotes, downvotes, messages said back and forth, channels I’m subscribed to and their general type of content, etc) to curate my algorithm; but you know.

a well curated (pruned of anything you don't like) watch history is essential to getting a good youtube experience. it's pretty much the only signal that drives recommendations.

… why do I need to delete something, that’s frustrating :( I don’t want to need to log out and turn off my ad blockers to watch something weird or abnormal on YouTube… I pay for premium for a reason :(

there's a pause watch history button on the history page or incognito mode or just open it in an incognito window

I think in 2024, Youtube changed the algo for the front page. Now there is almost always one video in the top two rows with tiny amounts of views. I think it came about when there were lots of complaints about discovery of niche/new stuff.

Yeah, like the sibling comments I can confirm that this is a core part of the YT algorithm now and has been so for at least a year.

If YouTube never shows people new videos then how do new videos get views?

New videos and “new videos from someone that’s never been seen before” or “who I’ve never seen before” are very different things.

Lately I've noticed this more frequently with Shorts. It brings about an interesting dilemma because I know for the algorithm to work and benefit creators, people need to watch videos with few views. But I also don't want to spend my time to figure out if a video is worth watching for the benefit of the algorithm.

To your point, TikTok is filled with absolute trash.

For example, there’s a company called “Cerebrum IQ” which scams people out of hundreds of dollars for fake IQ tests. We are painfully aware of this issue because we own cerebrum.com, and we receive at least 100 furious support requests per day from people who have been charged $80.00+ for a subscription they never agreed to, and they somehow confuse us with “Cerebrum IQ”.

They get most of their users from TikTok ads.

We’ve reported them to TikTok many times, with no action taken. Meta at least restricted their ability to advertise.

Reels doesn't provide a true alternative because it's not about features and functionality it's about culture. The culture on Meta's Reels is really not it. And it's not just the user base but also the way the app is managed, and the algorithm.

TikTok's algorithm was amazing, as was the community.

You can't just recreate communities. They're alive, organic, fragile things.

Having used both exclusively for warhammer and blood bowl content the instagram algorithm has been horrible in my very anecdotal experience. It keeps pushing content I have absolutly no interest in, where as TikTok only pushes warhammer and blood bowl content + adds.

This is a typical HN "marketing is stupid" post. TikTok organic and paid are some of the best drivers of leads and sales for businesses, same like FB and Google are as well.

Handwaving TT away as "another social media platform" is like comparing Friendster or MySpace with the ad machine that FB has built. There are countless businesses that will be impacted by this.

I would be happy if all social media was wiped out tomorrow. The eagerness of advertisers to throw money at these platforms frankly sickens me. So many of the internet's current ills originate in how social media platforms operate.

I don't give two shits how many leads these platforms drive, just like I don't care how many farmers the tobacco industry employs.

Indeed, let them eat cake!

their algorithm was inherently special imo. as well as their ad service. instagram seems like the biggest available replacement but it is so offputting for me subjectively with it's worse algorithm and increased and ill-matches ad placement.

some of the fediverse alternatives seem appealing but have less content.

i'm sure something will replace it if the ban remains in place but at the moment there's nothing nearly as good for me

But that's not the point. There's nothing inherently special about Facebook either. But the disruption is expensive and many would argue unnecessary.

My friend who is bartender downstairs from my condo is a singer in a band. They are active on TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram.

My cousin worked at a place where he would stream for 8 hours a day on tiktok and sell trading card packs and other collectables. I guess it was a bit like home shopping network. But his streams were kinda goofy and playful. I didn't really understand who the customers were. I guess some people found him entertaining and liked what he was selling.

So he's going to get a job now?

“Entertainment isn’t a real job” is a cool and normal opinion to have, and it’s usually held by people that are a blast to be around

It generally is. Many successful entertainers say they can’t believe they are paid to do what they do.

“You play the guitar on the MTV // That ain’t workin’, that’s the way you do it // Money for nothing and your chicks for free”

Did nothing to India with its 1B+ users when it was banned there 4 years ago. They just either used a VPN or just moved on.

While I disagree with the ban, I'd rather have a sensible fine just like the ones for Meta, Google (YouTube) and others. At one point it also might have temporarily saved someone's chronic addiction to the platform, then they'll just find another platform to get hooked on.

But for now nature is healing.

Indian users are very well versed in and used to circumventing government bans. It's a different audience

American are the chicken with golden egg, you don't want to lose them. They have the biggest ad profile value.

Indian on contrary are cheap, their profile are worth close to nothing.

I think national security might be more important than couple of small entertainment businesses.

Don't worry it will be reversed by the end of the week.

How? It's a law passed by Congress with support from both parties. Trump can delay the enforcement, but who knows what will happen after he is gone? Is there any guarantee that Apple, Google, or any companies providing services to TikTok won't face massive fines after Trump leaves?

The executive branch enforces laws. If there is no plan to enforce then it doesn't matter.

Also, unblocked as of now. Told ya.

Companies had 4 years, and more recently, 4 months of notice. Theres two other doom scrolling platforms to choose from.

I think people overestimate how much local businesses relied on it, sure a few were booming making "me too" content (looking at you pressure washing companies). But you will still find the goods and services you need.

And now you won't have dozens of bad temu ad's "OH I feel bad for whoever bought this vacuum yesterday because now its 57% off!!!"

I'm more concerned if our domestic economy can face that much hardship at the whims of a foriegn app. Seems like requiring divesting was the right call. Thankfully the bill includes provisions to require divestment much earlier on.

I know think of the poor starving only fans entrepreneurs - i mean small business owners. How ever will they pay for college now?

Why do you bash people who have found a way to make an income? We all know tech ain't hiring after everyone was told to 'learn to code'. What else is there to lead a middle class lifestyle?

Good luck if you ever have daughters.

You didn't actually answer the question.

This wasn’t a sudden thing. The law was passed 9 months ago.

Apple and Google created individual APIs to serve up phone number, contacts, exact location, device model, time zone, clipboard data, photos, files, and cookies to 10 million different random app developers to harvest to their heart's delight. US government passes law against just one of them for using said APIs. Are they going to fix the root of the issue, or just play whack-a-mole forever?

You know the answer.

Congress should ban operating systems is a hell of a take.

Favorite comment today, thank you sir/maam

If you're going to be ridiculous why stop there? Why not say the OP is implying all electronics should be banned?

Or are you arguing that no operating system can exist without tracking and sharing all of this data?

Just seeing how far we can stretch these strawmen, if you found out httb:/funvideo.ru got root access to your OS, not by any exploits, but by the intentional design of the OS, it's a hell of a take to be mad at funvideo.ru

Not only have they created those APIs, they've actually created hardware devices to collect and store such valuable personal data. Banning certain APIs is just another layer of whack-a-mole - we need them to pull the weed out by its roots!

I clicked open the link to find Yahoo has gone dark in China since 2021. Doesn’t work even with a VPN. I miss the good old days of the Web.

The chasm between the current tech world's culture and Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" is really jarring

> "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace"

I remember reading this in my mid-teens and it really speaking to me.

Sometimes we tend to forget: nobody is forcing us to use the crap that "the Internet" has become home to.

The Internet isn't the content, it's the network - the map is not the territory and the underlying architecture hasn't changed all that much.

There will always be room to carve out your space and find your people.

I mean there is still the FSF and there are plenty of interesting projects working in the decentralizing space.

My point it's just really moved to the periphery and is a subculture (and tied to crypto, which has a lot of shady things associated with it). The mainstream tech culture seems extremely nationalistic and terrified of the possibilities of a supranational unregulated unmoderated internet

It was inevitable. Human affairs outside brief chaotic periods are typically regulated in terms of 'legitimate' authorities. The presice constitution of such authority has changed over the aeons (bloodlines, theology etc) but in the modern world has settled on the nation-state. Everything, from the exercise of power, to the financial system and granting licenses to operate is granted by the state.

In retrospect what is surprising is how long it took for such a disruptive new technology to register with existing power structures (at least explicitly).

Decentralisation projects are trying to solve the problem of massive scale without central control.

Why are we trying to build a single unified platform for everything?

Maybe the friction of having different networks/applications based on the specific subculture/group you wish to associate with keeps them all a little less mainstream? Maybe this is a good thing?

Yeah, keeping it within a subculture has its benefits. I don't mean to be overly judgmental or saying how things should be.

I just wouldn't have guessed thing would have gone this way. I'd argue that the early Google was a bit of this nerd ethos going mainstream. And the degeneration was not top down from MBAs as one would predict, but seemingly from the bottom up from a new generation of programmers that don't seem to be in that supranational mindset

Being non mainstream also does present some issues. For instance I'm in China traveling at the moment. Github isn't blocked here but the connection is very flakey and some days it doesn't load at all. But effectively all OSS dev happens on github so I'm just out of luck. It'd be cool if there was some way to torrent repos for instance, but I don't think that's a service hooked up to github in any way

There's a middle ground where you get the worst of all worlds bc the current kinds lame/oring solution works for 90% of people most of the time

Anyway, it is what it is. You don't choose the jungle you live in

> There will always be room to carve out your space and find your people.

That's definitely true. However, what changed is that you didn't really need that 20 years ago to achieve the same thing. It definitely needs more energy and time to get that. 20 years ago you had to go to bullshit sites, now the bullshit comes to you.

During and before StumbleUpon times, when I visited a random site, there was a good chance, that I could trust in the information on that, at least on some level. That's basically 0 for a while now.

Then I started to carve out that space on some selected social media. In the past 5 years, most of the smart people just simply left. Also those spaces (especially when those places became more popular) are slowly flooded with unusable information/misinformation/simple lies shared by others, even from people who I trusted.

Now, even that kind of "carving" is even more difficult, with keeping the possibility to get to know new people. For example, TikTok's, YouTube's, BlueSky's, and Twitter's algorithm are terrible. I tried to teach them with brand new accounts, but they became either very boring quickly, or couldn't filter out even very obvious misinformation.

>In 2004, Barlow reflected on his 1990s work, specifically regarding his optimism. His response was that "we all get older and smarter"

Cyberpunk was already a well established genre in 96, if you didn't see what the net was going to turn into you were already high on your own hopium.

>In 2004, Barlow reflected on his 1990s work, specifically regarding his optimism. His response was that "we all get older and smarter"

...and then he wrote Mother American Night, which is way more radical and prescient than his declaration. If you are suggesting that John Perry's work tended toward statist notions of internet control later in life, you are mistaken.

Barlow's vision is alive and well. Go to a Billy Strings show and talk to bluegrass hacker hippies that ride the rail there. Or a good traditional Grateful Dead cover band. Or go to one of the more regen/cypherpunk ethereum events (GFEL, Regens Unite, Schelling Point, etc).

John Perry has tons of fans who came up through his songs and have since connected those dots.

https://justinholmes.bandcamp.com/track/barlows-jig

The cognitive dissonance is stunning. China is a closed system, corrupt, opaque, and doing business there risks being murdered if you don’t grease the right palms. Or if you greased the right palms today, but in 5 years you bribed someone who’s out of favor, could get death.

Chinese business crying foul over simply forcing an app to change owners is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

They even had 4 years to IPO, it's not like the ban was unknown.

The IPO is blocked because of the threat from US government.

They had months to sell TikToc and chose not to.

The link is to techcrunch and doesn't mention yahoo. All websites work with VPN in China, as long as the VPN itself isn't blocking them.

Maybe Yahoo owns TechCrunch. Perhaps they’re detecting access from China based on more than just IP address. Since Yahoo was grilled for handing over dissidents’ info to the Party they really went the extra mile to distance itself from China. They even blocked Engadget from China.

Funny enough, the very first foreign chat room that I've ever visited was hosted by Yahoo.com. Seeing people on the other side of globe talk shit feels kind magical, through that you reflect and gain idea of improvements, and it shapes your world view with a more complete (good and bad) picture.

Now days we have way more advanced self-media platforms, but each one is just an island of (both platform-imposed and self-imposed) isolation.

The irony is not lost on this oldie either. We used to truly be anonymous. No real names. No photos or videos posted online. JavaScript was limited to the wonders of DHTML. Web pages were documents. Everything felt decentralized, as was intended. I really miss those days. Ok, not the under construction animated gifs, but everything else.

Except for that time browsers used to send your PII along with requests

Always nice to see the American population kept safe from propaganda, affordable rents, a working healthcare system and fresh food for 90 cents.

You missed what this is actually about. This is about protecting the US from a foreign adversary. It's geo politics. China does the same with banning Facebook.

I think you did - define foreign adversary and check if you are typing on something that aids and abets this enemy.

Deflecting much :) What does that have to do with whether or not Tiktok is used a tool of war by a foreign adversary to the US?

The no 1 reason the US is banning Tiktok because they are protecting against the war on the minds of their population.

lets win that war by introducing affordable rents, a working healthcare system and fresh food for 90 cents. :) leaving the last word for you of course

LoL you have to bribe doctors to take care of you in not only China but also multiple EU countries: Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania.

In Hungary they banned Gratitude Payments since 2021.

You mean tips?

Why are these bribes in most of the world but not in America?

I only have experience with Greece and that’s certainly not true.

It’s not perfect, for cancer treatment a family friend had to drive 100 miles to the nearest major hospital, but that’s more of a rural thing.

Bottom line is: it is reasonable for governments to exercise control over the information environment their citizens experience, especially when social media has such potential to sow chaos and instability.

Look at how the US internet fuelled the fires of the Arab Spring / HK protests / Jan 6th / Any number of colour revolutions in Europe. Even today, we see X being used as a platform to encourage protests against governments in UK and Germany. National sovereignty is contingent on digital sovereignty - everyone is going to need a firewall.

It seems you are being downvoted, but I see this similarly. Elon musk applying pressure in German elections or UK politics via X/Twitter is basically exactly the problem with foreign interests controlling your social media; so I kinda hope the ban does set an example for other countries.

Maybe, once the inflammatory platforms like X & Facebook are banned in the EU, then we can also get a social network that is not fueled by VC growth and engagement metrics; but can be run by a nonprofit or something. A man can dream.

I think EU will not ban these platforms but mired them down with never ending stream of lawsuits, and eventually force a withdrawal - similar to how some US companies don't serve EU due to GDPR etc. A proper firewall should create the space for domestic services to re-emerge - and yes, we have a chance that these could be democratic from ground up. Lets hope so.

Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos have been putting their heads so far up into Trump's rear they are probably looking out of his mouth by now. There is absolutely zero chance for actual democratic systems to emerge in a country where the top 1% own 35% of literally everything there is to own, cronies in the government, and apex corporations mended to the will of an 80 year old convicted felon

yes i think it kind of looks that way I am afraid. US literally has an oligarch duly elected and assuming office in a few hours. We are in the era of robber barons, maybe similar to late 19th Century America, where J P Morgan was obviously the only man who mattered, despite the performative democracy.

I hope one day these platforms are governed by the people using them. "Users" are humans who have little voice in the decision making of their digital nations.

What are you talking about? X introduced this fantastic feature called Community Notes that allows users to collaboratively add context and fact-checks to potentially misleading posts. It relies on a crowdsourced system where contributors can write notes that are displayed if they receive enough support from users with diverse perspectives. And Meta recently announced that it is planning on introducing a similar feature.

Yes i think thats great. Does it give users a way to make decisions on how algorithms are used? On what the platform is called? On when someone should be banned? What should be penalties for breaking the rules? For writing any of the rules?

Just because we can have fact-checking doesn't mean we get to participate in the decision making process. A news station in a country is not the same as voting or having representation in legislation.

>Elon musk applying pressure in German elections

That doing an interview with a controversial politician is "applying pressure" and is seen as "a danger to democracy" (quoting German media) is all you need to know about the German media landscape and German politics.

>but can be run by a nonprofit or something

There are high profile celebs on German "state" television unironically being in favor of a state-run social network.

Pandora's box is open. For an in depth take on the subject, check out "The Revolt of the Public".

TL;DR Communication technology has changed the relationship between rulers and the ruled, and we are just beginning to see what that might mean for the future of civilization. The book promises a lot but doesn't quite deliver. Still interesting reading.

> it is reasonable for governments to exercise control over the information environment their citizens experience

It's reasonable for governments that don't entertain the notion that their citizens have freedoms of association, speech, etc. For countries where those concepts are legally enshrined in the country's own founding documents, no, it's not. Part of living in a democracy is having the responsibility to inform yourself and make voting decisions based on your own understanding. Letting the government tell people who they can and cannot listen to flies in the face of the very idea of democracy.

Yet democracy was created in a time without the ability to influence millions of people, in ways that exploit the wiring of our brains, in mere seconds, at once. We cannot pretend that people will act as sovereign entities with the nation's best interests in mind, when they're not making fully informed decisions, but misinformation and propaganda instead.

Giving an enemy a direct medium to feed information to your constituents at will is just a bad move, and no amount of free speech will change that.

it's over for this form democracy. How can it survive when foreign powers can influence elections with one update of an algorithm? A document written 200 years ago does not protect against the communication media we have today. I wish it were different, but we do not have the luxury of abstraction I am afraid

i agree that this is the logical conclusion of the Democrat’s handwringing about foreign interference in the election, but I think the notion that Russian interference actually decided the 2016 election is absurd and there has never been any evidence that it did so

> Letting the government tell people who they can and cannot listen to flies in the face of the very idea of democracy.

But that's not what this is doing.

People are still free to hear the same thing on other platforms (which they can considering how much is crossposted).

It's like getting rid of AM radio because you want to use the spectrum and claiming it violates freedom of speech because stations have to close down.

Exactly.

And anyone is free to fly to China and have conversations.

Or read the state-run media from China.

These free speech arguments seem to have the prior that TicTok is literally the only communications channel.

is there any way i could get a “real adult” pass or something like it so those in charge can treat me like an actually intelligent human being?

“we should restrict the information environment because the masses can’t handle it and it causes chaos and instability” is the exact same argument that well-educated Chinese use for why their country can’t be a democracy.

I see so many people arguing against the effectiveness of propaganda as if they think an opinion is arrived at deterministically with the same access to facts. Utterly insane.

Did I say this? No.

I don’t care how effective propaganda is, I am in a liberal democratic society and should be able to read what I want. Outcome-based reasoning for why I should have my reading restricted so I vote for the apriori correct things is entirely illiberal and anti-democratic.

J.S. Mill decided these arguments over 150 years ago and the arguments since have not gotten more compelling.

If China doesn’t permit our social media and search engine companies to operate in their country, why should we allow theirs in ours? Reciprocity in market access should be a baseline expectation.

TikTok was banned in India years ago. There was some noise initially but eventually everyone moved to Instagram Reels/YT Shorts. A few homegrown apps tried to capture the space but couldn't compete against Meta and Alphabet's entrenched network effect and superior platforms. TikTok wasn't as big in India back then as it is in the US right now but it was gaining traction and then lost it all. The same alternatives already exist in the US as well, people will move on in no time.

Consider the proximity of Zuckerberg to the new admin, and the current admin, and remember that this is only market consolidation (data consolidation) around Reels and Shorts.

yup, got to clamp down on the "rise up against the billionaire class" rhetoric. Billionaires want to replace the class war rhetoric with culture war, get the people distracted with bs.

Meanwhile, the greatest grifter in the world is installing his kleptocracy cabinet, pushing more neoliberalism economic policies, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy at the cost of public programs.

This country is absolutely cooked man.

Consider the proximity of Zuckerberg to the new admin

I guess you missed the nine million articles over the last few months about how the head of TikTok has been palling around with the new admin and is going to be proudly at the inauguration.

Zuck is not the scapegoat you're hoping for.

This is a pretty silly take considering the ban has been in the works for over half a decade now, with various parts of the US government and military banning TT for years now.

What's to stop TikTok from serving their website from non-US servers to all comers? Using it in a browser is not as smooth as an app, but there must be apps out there that are nothing but a WebView to URLs on a single domain (like you can do in Mac Safari with File... Add to Dock...). Submitting / watching videos wouldn't be that different.

It seems to me the only recourse the US would have is building The Great Firewall of America.

As far as I understand it, they wouldn't be able to advertise with US companies in the US so it's a lot of cost for no benefit. Unless they're hosting all that bandwidth for an altruistic reason..

> it's a lot of cost for no benefit

The argument for TikTok ban is that it's a Chinese propaganda machine.

I don't know whether it is true. But assuming it is, propaganda usually costs money.

You can't track user as well in browser, tiktok has no interest at all doing that. They make money by spying on their user, making profile and selling ads.

Laws don't care about technical aspects. ByteDance must comply with the law, meaning, they need to stop offering the service to US citizens, no matter where the servers are hosted, for example, by geofencing their product. If they don't comply, they risk fines. They can only ignore this if they don't care about doing business with the US ever again and their owners never want to set foot in the country again.

The funny thing here is that complying means they never do business in the US anyway. So potentially it is beneficial for Bytedance to still serve US viewers but keep no physical presence in the US, and deal only with non-American advertisers (e.g. US viewer see ads from SHEIN, Aliexpress, Ctrip, etc.) and still profit from this operation. Those companies will pay Bytedance in China, outside US control.

This is pretty much how US internet services operate in the rest of the world: YouTube have no physical presence in, say, Nigeria, but Nigerians watch YouTube just fine. That’s what the internet was all about. We’re connected by default, unless a government actively implements a firewall to stop it.

> Those companies will pay Bytedance in China, outside US control.

Then they are also likely to find themselves banned. Pretty silly to think the US would just throw up its hands and go "oh, you found the loophole, congrats, you win!"

Complying with the ban doesn't just mean that ByteDance can't do business in the US. It means other entities that might have a US presence also can't do business with them without risking being treated the same. I doubt Shein, Ali...etc will want to risk being kicked out of the US market for ByteDance's benefit.

Pretty silly to think the US would just throw up its hands and go "oh, you found the loophole, congrats, you win!"

Agreed. It would be an act or law passed to force ISP's to null route anything to ByteDance networks and if they play whack-a-mole then it would just be a great-wall null route of China.

Yes, this is the point made by the root-level comment: the US would have to build Chinese style Great Firewall to achieve its goal if Bytedance didn't willingly take down their sites.

In my understanding this law in question requires US-based app stores and ISPs to stop hosting for Bytedance. Assuming they comply with this fully, your packets can still reach arbitrary address in China due to the technical nature of the Internet. US would have to examine every outgoing packet and block a lot of organizations' IPs around the world (e.g. a Brazillian CDN that has no presence in the US) to make Tiktok inaccessible.

It's very much a technical problem is the point I was making. Significant portion of Chinese users bypass the ban to access American services. There is a wide spectrum of possible GFW implementations the US can choose from. Anything short of the North Korean one, Tiktok is not going to be completely banned.

Case in point: I saw another commenter managed to access Tiktok by remotely operating a Windows server located in Canada, should their ISP / cloud provider they rented server from / Tiktok Canada be held liable for serving this user? What about users who simply alter their DNS / use socks proxy / VPNs to gain access? The US could develop technology to ban all this, then it would end up exactly the same as China.

The US wouldn't have to do that, they can go after the financial side of the business. They could prosecute or make the lives of any persons involved with these companies very difficult financially. Imagine trying to do business in the US when no credit card processors, banks, or other financial institutions will touch you with a mile-long pole. Now imagine facing that not as a company, but as an individual; How comfortable of a life do you think you'd have as a person living in the US and being unable to access practically any financial institution? And even outside the US, how many companies with a US presence would kick you out to avoid Uncle Sam paying them a visit?

It's only partially a technical problem -- most of the issue lies in the rubber hose.

> Laws don't care about technical aspects.

On sufficiently long time scales, which will win?

And why are we so afraid to admit the answer to this question?

How can it get any more obvious that nation states are no longer a compelling organizing principle for peaceful, civil society?

TikTok is forbidden in India already since 2020:

https://time.com/7208112/what-happened-when-india-banned-tik...

...and everybody knows, _nobody_ in India uses tiktok.

I think most folks are upset because the US always projects this open image about itself around the world and most importantly to it's citizens. However there are cases where it's actions go against this prevailing narrative and the people are starting to ask questions.

I think most people are upset because they're having withdrawal.

Can someone please explain to me, why it is illegal to publish biased media? Please relate your answer to US native broadcasters like Fox News.

The public discourse in the US appears very distorted. The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic?

IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?

All this is so bizare to me. I dont expect reasonable answers.

Always surprised me in the land of the "Free" they ban a whole lot more than in most other countries. Books, LGBT stuff, no objective media. It feels quite medieval.

"Banned books!" is a phrase used for marketing, but it's not really accurate. Most, if not all, of the allegedly "banned books" aren't "banned" in the sense that you are implying, and the "banning" isn't being done by the fedeeal United States government. You can go to bookstores and see entire sections of "banned" books, which as you might guess from the fact that they are freely sold are not in fact really banned.

I mean, book banning isn't a federal level thing (at least not at any remotely broad level) and typically happens either on one side of the political spectrum (same deal with LGBT stuff), or at the level of individual school systems. e.g. you won't find that book at the school library at most, but the bookstore down the street will have it.

Vast difference from the typical notion of book burnings and such.

"Objective" media exists (NPR, PBS(?), CSPAN) but just isn't as popular because biased media attracts more attention through confirmation bias and flashiness.

> Can someone please explain to me, why it is illegal to publish biased media?

You have been misinformed, it is not illegal to publish biased media.

> The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic.

What are you trying to say? The majority passes something, and the Supreme Court chose to allow it to continue.

> IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?

You're right that it's about media control, namely a foreign adversary being able to completely control media widely consumed in the United States. Framing a content-neutral conditional ban, which could've been avoided without any content changes, as being against "free speech" makes zero sense when the platform being banned is controlled by a foreign adversary that doesn't have free speech. The argument is that a foreign adversary shouldn't be allowed to censor and manipulate our media and farm our data.

Thanks for the answer but i am still not satisfied.

So, the problem seems to be _foreign_ biased media and not biased media in general. General media bias could be made punishable too but this would take away influencial powers.

> a content-neutral conditional ban.

So TikToks content or bias is irrelevant? The only thing left is the adversarial ownership, which is ban worthy. How?

> So, the problem seems to be _foreign_ biased media and not biased media in general.

That literally is the purpose of the ban. It’s not like you have happened across some kind of novel “gotcha” here.

It's not illegal to publish biased media in the US. Not sure where you got that idea.

I didn’t expect HN to be full of bootlicking fascists totally fine with censorship as long as the bogeyman is China.

Red panic is back. I’d be careful honestly.

It's coming back: https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/19/24347280/tiktok-ban-shutd...

Anecdote says the app is currently having network trouble, so I expect there's some devops minions having a sweaty moment, but the ban is (to be) postponed (and in the meanwhile not enforced).

I cannot even imagine the indemnity provisions that were entered into by TikTok to give its network providers enough risk mitigation to turn the taps back on. As far as I can see, the app stores still are not listing ByteDance-related apps so it seems that TikTok could not assure Apple and Google.

> against arbitrary censorship

Such hypocrisy given that the non-China version of TikTok is banned in China.

This'll be a pretty interesting psychological experiment. Tomorrow a whole lot of addicted people are going to be experiencing withdrawals at the same time. I have to assume nothing major will come of it, but still, there's not too many instances of this occurring in society, right?

Most people will just use Instagram Reels or YouTube shorts. They’re identical.

Just like C, C++ and C#

Of course. If C goes away what you do. Code in C++ or quit programming.

“Quit programming” is excellent advice regardless of the language.

If C went away, we would have to switch to ++ or #

YT sure. However, there are a lot of anger towards IG from TT users and creators.

I do think this is one possible outcome. I didn't use TikTok (nor do I use reels or shorts), so I don't really feel educated enough to be as confident as you.

I was browsing r/TikTok and the comments there certainly don't seem to imply that everyone is eager/interested in going to reels/shorts. I hardly even see those platforms mentioned in https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1i4p6s0/rip/ but it could just be sampling bias since I'm reading Reddit comments rather than looking for discussions on YouTube/Instagram.

Still, it takes time to habituate to a new app's UI and culture. Even if people are willing and able to shift to a new platform I think there will be a lot of shared frustration in the short term.

Reddit is the ultimate fanatic echo chamber. I wouldn’t trust any opinion bubbling up there to be representative of any large group.

Yeah agree completely.

Opinions on Reddit and HN are almost always from the 5% most engaged, most online of any subgroup. These are not regular people. Is every software developer you know represented by the opinions that get upvoted on HN? Thankfully, no. Similarly the kind of people posting to /r/tiktok aren’t your regular TikTok user by a long shot.

They’re going to need their next fix from somewhere so they’ll move pretty quickly… they may complain for a bit but a junkie needs their drugs regardless of the source and quality

To borrow a Tiktok meme... tell me you don't use Tiktok without telling me you don't use Tiktok. This seems like such a surface-level comment from somebody with no familiarity with the platform. People love Tiktok. People on Tiktok hate Instagram Reels and Youtube Shorts, for many reasons. Examples:

- IG Reels are limited to 90 seconds compared to 3 or 10 minutes on TT;

- Youtube Shorts can now be up to 3 minutes but that's relatively new (October 2024 IIRC);

- Tiktok moentization is better than these other two platforms, both in terms of ad revenue but more importantly, the Tiktok Shop;

- The comments on Tiktok are truly a league above IG or YT. The latter two are just full of random drivel and vitriol;

- The recommendation algorithm for scrolling on TT is miles ahead of either platform;

- Tiktok is the only platform where people went there for short-form videos. They're native to the platform whereas they were bolted on to both IG and YT as an afterthought, a real "me too" Tiktok response. And they don't quite fit. The user experience on Tiktok is so much better than IG or YT.

- A huge chunk of Reels and Shorts content is simply reposted Tiktoks.

Sundar and Mark may think they'll simply gain Tiktok's user base. I honestly don't see that happening. I'm sure there'll be an uptick in YT and IG but now 170M MAU worth.

Also:

- you can't watch at 2x on reels

- you can't pause a video while watching on reels

- you can't seek in a video either, you just have to watch the whole thing over

- reels interrupts your experience with awful ads every 2-3 swipes

- YT shorts probably has awful ads too, I haven't tried it

The time limit is probably going to be the biggest issue for YT and reels, but the ergonomics of both are so awful that I can't use them for more than a few minutes. I could scroll TikTok until the little video about scrolling too long came up (an hour I think).

- You can pause a video. Not the best UX, but you need to HOLD your finger, just like you do for Stories

- You can seek in a video too. Again, awful UX, the line is super small, but you can. Depends how large the video is, I believe.

> To borrow a Tiktok meme... tell me you don't use Tiktok without telling me you don't use Tiktok.

Like so much else on Tiktok, this originated elsewhere. In this case, Twitter.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tell-me-without-telling-me

That's the one thing I dislike about the ban: that it helps zuckergram

that's likely the largest reason it went through. If you think US social networking companies weren't pushing the ban for financial reasons, you're just being silly.

404 did an article on it: https://www.404media.co/a-tiktok-ban-is-a-gift-to-meta-and-i...

You think Zuckerberg paid off the Supreme Court? You’ve got to be joking.

Even Trump, who we know Zuckerberg had donated to, claims he will try to “bring back TikTok”.

This case was argued and won on the basis of national data security.

Of course I read that and know the arguments, I'm not an idiot.

But I see through it because once again, I'm not an idiot.

When far more sensitive social media apps like Grindr were sold to Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd, nobody went crazy because it didn't threaten FAANG.

There's many swiping and dating apps owned by chinese firms. You also have chinese capital firms being the primary investor in cloud and photo sharing apps. Plenty of sensitive stuff going through the spindly fingers of the shifty orientals without a peep - for like decades.

There's even Chinese finance apps like WeBull that hold things as sensitive as American's retirement accounts. Apparently also not a problem.

People have Wyze doorbell cameras and TCL smartTVs and Eufy security cameras. They have TP-Link routers and Hisense computer monitors. Chinese cameras, WiFi, and microphones are everywhere in the modern home.

But once something came around that was a plausible competitive threat to FAANG then all these reasons just materialize and get applied to that thing specifically.

I mean seriously. Give me a break.

We like to look back 100 years ago at protectionism and racism and tell ourselves that we were dumber back then and wouldn't fall for it now.

And yet, here we are.

My read on the situation is that this is the beginning of clamping down on _all_ (or most) of this. Also important to note the difference between racism and national security. The notion isn't "wacky chinese people ooh so mysterious so sneky", it's that the government isn't the US's ally and has (valid) reasons to want to reduce the US's grip on the global stage.

It's not (just) that it poses an economic threat to one of the biggest US companies (which as you said, I'm sure plays a big part in why it's suddenly relevant), but that it allows a government-influenced foreign media channel to influence policy indirectly by means of mass dissemination.

As for why now and not before, it's because of how apparent the possible effects are now that there's a very direct and widely spread channel that can pump OUT information, which is vastly more effective and obvious than passive surveillance through cameras or other hardware. (Also cybersecurity people have been calling out this sort of stuff for hardware since time immemorial)

My main gripe is actually a neoliberal sympathy (something I usually don't have).

The framework is progress moves fastest with a global leveling and elimination of friction between markets.

Fundamentally I see this as American companies using government cheat codes instead of sharpening their game, just like with the Chinese electric cars 100% tax.

It stems from my critique of neoliberalism, the failure to invest in foundational societal systems that give an affordance to such positioning: education, mass transit, health care, maternity leave, preschool funding, scholastic enrichment, the stuff that most of Asia is great at we're lousy at.

Chinese people aren't like genetically superior, they just spent the past 50 years investing in their people instead of taking things away and fighting stupid wars.

And these are the chickens coming home to roost just like they did for Hungary, the UK, and Spain.

We've been fucking up for decades and racism isn't going to fix it.

> As for why now and not before, it's because of how apparent the possible effects are now that there's a very direct and widely spread channel that can pump OUT information, which is vastly more effective and obvious than passive surveillance through cameras or other hardware.

This. TT's US popularity plus its fully algorithmic approach to content selection makes it potentially one of the most effective mass influence systems ever. People are easily influenced - especially young people - and the root of that being in China is a clear risk to US sovereignty.

I mean, look at what Xi and his allies would like to see happening in the US, and look at what's happening in the US today. Coincidence?

At least one Supreme Court justice is well known to be corrupt. I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.

> Most people will just use Instagram Reels or YouTube shorts. They’re identical

You’re being downvoted. But you’re correct. The vocal minority inflames about this are mostly ideologically offended, based on the calls and letters I’m hearing both blue and red electeds receive.

You're a biased party because you've canvased for the bill and I think it's good to call your stake in the matter out.

If it were this simple then Rep Ro Khanna wouldn't still be posting about TikTok. As far as what happens, as with everything else, we'll see. There's a million variables and Hacker ``Social Media was tantamount to the Fall of Man'' News is not the place I'm expecting particularly fruitful, unbiased analysis.

> You're a biased party because you've canvased for the bill

Eh, I canvassed for privacy bills and that was a total disaster. I believe in the TikTok ban, but I’m not passionate about it.

> then Rep Ro Khanna wouldn't still be posting about TikTok

If I were advising Ro I would absolutely insist he tweet about it. Particularly off cycle. Anyone in Silicon Valley or a district with rich libertarians, for that matter.

Ro Khanna doesn't represent the majority of rich libertarian types who would be in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, and Saratoga. The rest of Silicon Valley tends to be suburban, upper class tech workers with large immigrant populations who are only moderately likely to have libertarian views.

> rest of Silicon Valley tends to be suburban, upper class tech workers with large immigrant populations who are only moderately likely to have libertarian views

And very likely to not be paying attention to him right now to the degree they’ll remember anything come election. Not for tangential issues. Donors, on the other hand, can give now.

Or RedNote

They are identical in the same way that my Hacker News and Facebook are identical. They are both places where people post stuff and comment on stuff but the community in each is very different.

If Hacker News were to shut down for just the US users and people were told to go continue the conversation on Facebook do you think that it would feel the same?

Part of what makes TikTok and Hacker News great is the interaction with people all over the world. What's going to happen to the diaspora? Are they going to all end up in one place?

Again, if Hacker News kicked out all of the Americans living on US soil then would the rest of the users follow the Americans onto Facebook to continue the conversation?

Hacker news is the only online space I participate in regularly. But I also wonder if my life might be better if I cut it out too.

100%. I used to love meetups in sf via meetup back in the day, really genuine people wanting to learn new things at the time. When that platform collapsed, it basically wasn’t replaced at all.

Same thing could be said of the academic side of Twitter. It’s now fragmented across Twitter, Bluesky, mastodon, and the level is discussion is very diminished

It depends on what content you watch on TikTok. Many comedy content creators on TikTok have identical, mirrored copies of their content on Instagram (an example is Leenda Dong, who has been very popular on both TikTok and Instagram).

This was also tested in practice in India, when the country banned TikTok in 2020. Rest of World published a report in 2023 with the conclusion that most users simply switched to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts without much complaint, just as the previous commenter predicted: https://restofworld.org/2023/america-india-tiktok-ban/

Strangely, Meta doesn't allow Reels longer than 3 minutes (90 seconds prior to a couple days ago). Why they don't match TikTok exactly is beyond me.

I agree. It's mind-boggling their reluctance to be a TikTok alternative, especially with knowing about the ban so far in advance

I do say they should have even relaunched IGTV again lol.

They were faster to clone Twitter with Threads.

>They were faster to clone Twitter with Threads.

Wasn't that because they hired a lot of ex-Twitter employees with an obvious ax to grind ha ha?

That isn't just Facebook. It's literally everyone. This is an entrepreneur site. Why are there no one trying to replicate the algorithm? Seriously? If there is one thing a free society and free enterprise should do, it should be copy the things that make sense and that work the best, objectively, as experienced by the customers.

Yeah yeah. Cattle customers. Bla bla bla.

I must be missing something blatantly obvious or there is some conspiracy here?

Trump will bring it back in a couple days, it won't be gone long enough to have a large effect.

People are already calling 911 about it.

https://old.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1i4puyg/pov_tiktok_...

Related ongoing thread:

About availability of TikTok and ByteDance Ltd. apps in the United States - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42754130 - Jan 2025 (80 comments)

Today I learned that TikTok has been used by over half the US population! In Europe, usage numbers are significantly lower and it's still generally regarded as something for young people. In fact, I only know very few adults (in my country) who actively use TikTok.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/tiktok-us...

Any US resident that could write something about their insights how Tiktok became so popular with residents over 30? What are the typical usage reasons for more mature people that differ from the incentives for young people?

I have a single anecdote, not much insight, but I'm interested in advancing discussion around your question.

My wife, in her mid-30s, has friends who will share or send her links to TikTok videos. She says that she can't view them because she doesn't have an account, but she doesn't want to create an account because she "knows she has an addictive personality" [1] and has read about the power of TikTok. Anyway, I imagine that this is how it starts for a lot of people: not wanting to miss out on stuff sent by a friend, creating an account to check it out, and then rapidly getting sucked into the addictive user experience. And it keeps spreading the same way from there.

[1] She does, and I'm thankful that she recognizes this. She's already a heavy consumer of Facebook Reels, by the way.

The only friend on mine who actively uses TikTok (as far as I'm aware) has ADHD...

35 year old US resident here - the recommendation algorithm is incredibly good at being very quickly tuned to your interests, so if you learn to take that seriously it's an incredible tool for learning about different crafts / trades / topics from experts who create content.

For example, my feed was full of electrician and HVAC content, philosophy, skiing tutorials, constitutional law, international news, physics, etc.

You have to use the app with intention to arrive at and maintain this state. I actively press the "not interested" button on videos that are mindless or just not in line with the kind of experience I want (rage bait, suggestive content, brand content, etc). That's a skill that many non-TikTok users don't really understand as well I think.

The algorithm is very much like an AI companion in some ways, which can be good or bad depending on the user's maintenance and steering of that relationship.

US Resident here. I am in my 50s. Joined TikTok in November 2019. Never joined twitch etc., been away from X for years, and I check FB/IG but rarely, almost never used discord, and not aware of all platforms, but I used TikTok and Reddit heavily.

I checked out TikTok first because someone had posted a link to - shudder - another Israel Palestinian viral video. I am none of those, in fact I have Indian non-muslim non-jewish origin (but been American for a long time). While scrolling through over the days, there were a couple of things I liked and which eventually got me hooked

- There was this brother sister video (not sure I can name names) where they are just running through a house while filming, and end up in front of the bathroom mirror dancing, and then you realize that one of the persons in the mirror is the cameraperson all along. Very well done movements, awesome music, and 100s of copycats, maybe 1000s. I watched almost all of them I guess :) Goes with a song - "taking a picture of you, ramalama bang bang". The brother posted another draft of the same yesterday (from 2019) just before the ban, and I spent another 15 minutes scrolling through the variations. Quite an experience. There were videos by ordinary people that were just so well done.

- There were 2 Indian songs which were copied / parodied really well in those days. Nowadays the copycats do not seem original, but those 2 songs - the variations people created were amazing. And this was before India banned Tiktok so there was a lot more "Indian Indian" content rather than "Indian American" content. Maybe it was the first time I was watching these, but these were joyful, and there was no going back after that.

Over time, you get familiar with many creators. You engage with some of them. Yes there is a lot of people trying to build their "celebrity/influencer" profile but there are a lot of genuine connections. I mean, why do I need to only watch my family's birthday pics, when I can track some musicians, follow some amazing cosplay artists, see some parodies and standup comedies. Everything was there. My latest follows were 1) a UK guy traveling through India eating street food, and 2) 2 magicians based in Berlin similar to Siegfried and Roy but different. I even posted some singing videos there not for follows or likes but because the platform gave good tools to create videos, even without lipsyncing.

But you know you can easily get sidetracked and also step out of bounds. People use it to earn money just by talking, people use it to link it to places where only fans will go (but no direct links). You can go down many rabbit holes, I attended lives a few times, but not ordinarily (lot of people do), and I only engaged in 1:1 conversation with 2 people - over 5 years. I just was not comfortable talking to someone I would never meet in person and be able to assess only based on their fake TikTok persona, but people do engage in discussions. And I did buy from the TikTok shop in December because they had a product with an appeal and a price I could not refuse :) So I guess I tried it all.

Could the same be done on IG / YouTube Shorts - I used them occasionally, but no, they are quite subpar. But now that they are the only alternative, so maybe ... after waiting for a few weeks. Right now, Red Note is engaging enough.

they are really blocking even with VPN, i was just testing stuff out. 1 - if you created an account in US and trying to login with that account, then it wont work. 2 - tried logging in to Canada VPN, and create a "Canadian" account so i can login to tiktok, no joy, it somehow throws errors on debugger and does not proceed on sign up button. 3 - Booted up an AWS ec2 free windows tier machine on Canada region, created and logged in with a new account no issues. 4 - if you try to use that account on your machine with canada vpn, you will get suspicious activity alert then it wont let you login even with canada VPN, so they must tracking device location differently. 5 - So, the only way to access it without any issues is by using some virtual machine located in another region - no VPN, maybe a dedicated region IP might work.

I'm in France and it still doesn't work. They might have just turned it off completely.

Edit: Nevermind, it works from an incognito window. So it's just my account they banned.

I guess tiktok is similar to Meta. It's basically impossible to create Instagram, and I guess Facebook accounts using VPN.

Let's put aside freedom of speech and Meta v China for a moment:

Has anyone suspected foreign interference in our social media during the height of the culture wars in the last decade? We had people encouraging civil unrest on the Left (whenever there was some police shooting or event where racism was suspected), and we had people encouraging civil unrest on the right (an immigrant committed a crime, or similar). We had puppet trolls in Twitter, Facebook, Reddit etc.

Russia and the United States have been doing this to each other - stirring civil unrest with propaganda - since the 1950s. It's an old war.

Does that not merit consideration in this conversation?

I think it does, but you make it sound like it's a symmetric information war. It's not.

From your examples de difference is that we've witnessed police brutality in the us with countless examples of excessive force (the hood and the knee to the throat are example. Whereas the same cannot be said for immigrants, first because I think it's an opinion that wins votes for these anti-stablishment ultra right wing, second because it's totally different to compare immigrants and the police as an institution.

You completely missed the point. The point is that there appear to be foreign actors encouraging divisions in the American population. The point was definitely not, this side is naughty and that other side is wholesome, or vice-versa, or they're equal, and let's debate. Nope, let's not debate that please.

If it's that then it's even worse. There surely are powers dividing Americans but the biggest threat isn't foreign. It's internal, slowly manipulating public opinion to trap the country into an oligarchy.

I am aware of the irony here. I'm Brazillian and the vice president based his entire campaign on the false threat of an internal actor distabilizing the country, in this case the communists. It's the same thing in US but it's a foreign actor to blame. Curious how the narrative always fits the agenda.

Rule of thumb, if the political geist points one way the problem most likely lies in the opposite way.

I think there is a weakness in our societies that can be exposed by foreign actors via social media.

Just because of your Brazilian example of fake (who knows) internal threats, doesn't mean what I just said in this thread is fake:

"Update: After this story published, Facebook took down two of the five troll-farm pages we identified.

In the run-up to the 2020 election, the most highly contested in US history, Facebook’s most popular pages for Christian and Black American content were being run by Eastern European troll farms. These pages were part of a larger network that collectively reached nearly half of all Americans, according to an internal company report, and achieved that reach not through user choice but primarily as a result of Facebook’s own platform design and engagement-hungry algorithm."

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...

I think now I was the one that didn't get my point across correctly.

I'm not claiming anything you say is false. Troll farms and external interference is indeed a problem.

But Musk just bought the election for Trump. If that isn't an indicator that the imminent threat is internal and not external, I don't know what is.

i think we are more than capable of causing unrest all on our own

We are, but if foreign actors are adding fuel to the fire then should the government act. That's the topic.

If the problem is China, why wouldn't they ban all apps from China?

And what exactly is preventing China to launch a new app withjin hours (that is the point of cloud infras right?) under a new company using tiktok source code and allow easy importation of dumps from tiktok to facilitate their migration and get a head start?

They are "trying" to go for all apps from China. Someone above mentioned Grindr was also targeted.

As for the one's they've missed, typical government incompetence. They have trouble differentiating what is, and is not a "Chinese app".

"And what exactly is preventing China to launch a new app within hours..."

No users. TikTok's massive userbase wasn't created in 7 days.

While I have no particular love for Tiktok, I hope this serves as an educational moment for younger generations about putting all of your trust in apps and app store gatekeepers instead of the open web.

This is one of the most slippery slopes I think we have ever ventured down in the history of the Internet here in North America.

Not impressed whatsoever with this.

This is not what the internet is all about.

The internet has been dead for like 20 years dude. It's been over.

So let's just roll over and give up then? Is that what you're implying?

If nobody takes a stand against situations like this, it's only going to get worse.

Enact laws that require app makes not to be allowed to harvest so much data and/or hold onto it for more than 24 hours perhaps.

But don't just kick some massively successful company off of your country's internet because you're afraid.

The only way me as a regular person is able to 'take a stand' is to take my income and assets and move somewhere that I believe is more conductive to the way I want to live.

Maybe another open source library will fix it.

As someone who has used TikTok, I don’t hate the outcome, but hate the mendacity with which it was executed. TikTok is brain rot, a better way of describing it is digital crack. You can spend hours and hours on TikTok in a numb state, with no sense of what’s going on in the world around you. If the government decided, this addiction is not good, let’s treat it like a drug and ban it, I would be all for it. But claiming it is a tool of Chinese Propaganda is absurd.

Anyone who uses TikTok, knows China can’t really gin up any propaganda through it.

Propaganda only works if it seduces, not if it bludgeons and China as a country never seems to be able to seduce. It’s Hollywood that gets exported to China, Xi Jinpings daughter studied at Harvard, not the other way around. China is a fashion victim of US propaganda if anything. The worst China could do, was artificially boost “how cool China is” TikTok’s, crudely ban TianMen Square TikTok’s and this does not convince anyone. It only encourages even more subversive TikTok’s, weakening its power further.

In fact I would claim, China not only has no power over those that use TikTok, but in its current regime, it has no pathway to ever influence those that use TikTok, even in the future. The Chinese regime is practically capable but culturally uncool. All that the American Regime has succeeded in banning TikTok, is embarrass the American Regime and reveal itself to be equally uncool in the eyes of Gen Z. If you browsed TikTok recently, you have seen probably all the ironic TikTok’s of Americans saluting the Chinese National Anthem. This irony from the younger generation, itself shows how uncool Congress has become. A culturally dominant regime, would have no reason to worry about enemy’s propaganda, and America didn’t realize it but it was very culturally dominant, now however it’s own insecurity has harmed its prestige significantly.

> But claiming it is a tool of Chinese Propaganda is so absurd.

It is a tool of chinese propaganda and surveillance.

You’re assuming that they only have the power to show the user propaganda, but I think the real power is in hiding content they don’t want people to see.

I don’t understand this argument that China couldn’t possibly use the app to influence public opinion. The TikTok algorithm works by tagging a bunch of features onto a video. How positive is it, political bent, comedy, cat, depressive, anything. And the people running these apps can then pull levers as they see fit to change the distribution of content shown to users.

In fact in a very real sense I think it’s impossible to be neutral. Similar to running a newspaper and picking which articles are on the front page. There is no neutral outcome: the owners of a feed inevitably make editorial choices on what gets shown.

Think of it like parenting a teenager. If you be extremely disciplinarian, ban a bunch of stuff, have rigid rules, you don’t get an obedient child, you just get painful rebellion and if you quash it hard enough, you get a child ready to run away at the first notice.

The best way to deal with teenagers, is if you are cool in their eyes, then they will naturally try to copy you. This is hard for most parents, try too hard to be cool and you will be relentlessly mocked. In fact if you can’t be cool, it’s best to just be neutral and let them drift the way they drift, because if you try to impose too much, you just encourage their natural rebellious streak and get opposite results.

The Chinese government has always been in the position of the uncool parent who is trying to take control by being a disciplinarian. Thinking they can control US public through some hidden levers, is like thinking the parent secretly is making the teenager do his bidding by playing 5D chess. It is a fantasy. The US regime was more cool, maybe not as cool as actual Gen Z, but cool enough that they were not relentlessly mocked. Unfortunately this act, just exposes them as uncool after all, and makes them get relentlessly mocked. If the goal, is to win hearts and minds, US could not have scored a better own goal. That said, maybe this was going to happen anyway, the newer generation seems the most ironic and the quickest to mock existing social mores and ideals, and this act just sped up the process.

Yeah I mean idk what to tell you, your comment is 100% vibes and wavey metaphors. The reality is that China gets to control which videos get put in the FYP and there are plenty of good videos with "controversial political stance A" vs "B" to pick between based on their agenda.

You just need to use TikTok for 5 minutes, to understand that China controlling minds of citizens through TikTok is a fantasy

I love TikTok! Use it all the time. But sometimes, they show me political content. And I worry about the process that selects those videos.

Your understanding of the situation is incredibly naive. TikTok can selectively suppress or emphasize viewpoints that are geopolitically advantageous to China that are not as overt as "China GOOD!" or whatever you imagine propaganda to be.

This is studied and proven to be happening already: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...

Oh there's plenty of Chinese seduction propaganda on TikTok. Literally every single tiktok users knows about the mountainous city Chongqing.

Just before the ban product price tiktoks were huge: 2 usd corn in China VS 6 usd in the US where comments pointing out that Americans have 5x on avg higher wages were clearly down ranked.

Not my country so I couldn't care less. Just my observation from two oceans away:

US is a hypocrite. How about Meta and other US companies? Those companies does the same if not worse damage to your citizen.

> US is a hypocrite

No, it's not. The point is about who's doing the damage. Ultimately, you can't really drop a ginsu telephone pole or send a 3-letter agency for a late night visit to a China-controlled company's leadership, but you can do that with US-based companies. From a geopolitical stance, US companies can be wielded to further US' interests, not so much for ByteDance.

IMO Pandora's box is now open, and it's a matter of time before we see countries around the world offer the same divest-or-ban choice to Meta, Google, etc. The question is who first and how quickly it will happen.

Facebook and Google are already banned or blocked in multiple countries.

You raise a good point. Let me step back and say that previously it's mostly authoritarian countries doing it and this type of censorship is generally unacceptable in Western societies, that the US is fundamentally different from China in the freedoms they allow.

Today we are shown that the US government can't tolerate a single non-American service becoming mainstream after all. I fear this will become the norm and in a couple years' time, all countries will block all foreign internet services by default, only homegrown apps will exist. Think Canada, France, the UK each having their own versions of Google, Instagram, Reddit, everything.

I don't think that's right. It's specifically about China, an adversary we are teetering on the brink of open conflict with. If ByteDance was a south Korean company, I don't think this would have happened.

The difference is that citizens can influence those companies, or influence the politicians that can influence those companies. Also, there's no direct incentive to have broad negative impacts on citizen consumers at a global politics level (not that it doesn't do so at other levels).

If you're another country consuming Meta, etc. then you should probably be wary about dependence on a foreign platform's influence. The biggest difference however is how close the platform is to the government. In the US, it's getting closer, but still has some separation; in China it's rather close to one-and-the-same due to the pressure that the govt can exert on companies to do their bidding.

Did they also delist themselves from the App Store or is that by Apple and Google?

Yes.

The text of the bill explicitly holds app marketplaces liable for civil penalties if they distribute "foreign adversary controlled applications". So my guess is that Apple and Google are both opting to prevent distribution, even if ByteDance is willing to delist TikTok itself

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

>"The text of the bill explicitly holds app marketplaces liable for civil penalties if they distribute "foreign adversary controlled applications"."

Spirit of the script seems to be stolen straight from the former USSR

It's a shame that it's come to this. I feel that all arguments that TikTok is unhealthy or spyware and bad for our general public are valid, but the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever. Rather than have some sort of further regulation for what data any application can collect and present to Americans, we've just brought the hammer down on the millions of people that use this application for their livelihood. This serves only to enrich our American tech monopolies — companies which have proven to us that they have bad intentions towards our country's people.

Truly bleak.

as a parent who has attempted to navigate the complexities of social media and mental health and social norms and conformity, social media absolutely has an effect on how the emerging generations interact with their surrounding environments, and in my experience, all been negative. I understand this is colloquial, but the cloak wheel evidence of all of my peers additionally supports this. i’m sad, not that this has been banned and gone dark, but at the emotional and social uproar that this seems to have created.

To an extent, yes, some of the arguments absolutely apply to other platforms as well. But others don't. You never saw such platforms directly impact elections as much, having Russian operations have as big as an impact as they have had on TikTok in e.g. Eastern Europe. Of course they tried running campaigns in the past on Facebook as well, but not with as high of an impact, and after they got caught the platforms have put in a reasonable amount of effort to crack down on them. TikTok knowingly turns a blind eye, and unlike with the US platforms, Russia can be much more blatant.

Think it would be pretty reasonable for other countries to ban such platforms too though, as China has understandably already been doing for over a decade. Facebook of course played a big role in genocide in Myanmar, so I wouldn't dare say the US platforms are necessarily better.

>> having Russian operations have as big as an impact as they have had on TikTok in e.g. Eastern Europe

I suppose you refer to this: https://theconversation.com/why-romanias-election-was-annull...

"The Romanian constitutional court annulled the country’s presidential election on December 6.

This decision is unprecedented in Romanian history. It followed the declassification of documents by Romanian intelligence services that exposed evidence of voting manipulation through social media platforms, illegal campaign financing on TikTok, cyber-attacks orchestrated by external forces and suspected Russian interference."

This goes to European Court of Human Rights. It may find out that cancelling election results was unnecessary.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/electoral-dysfunction-romanias-elec...

> Here, the opposite could be alleged- that Romania took action, but the action was too immediate and drastic than was called for in the circumstances. Considering how the Court expressed a critical view of overly drastic measures in cases such as the above-mentioned Kermiova v Azerbaijan, it is possible that the Court could similarly show a disdain for the expeditious actions taken by the domestic judiciary in Romania.

Also apparently most voters voted this candidate because of economic reasos, not due to Russian proximity.

Most voters didn’t vote for that candidate though. They voted for a more moderate and not pro-Russia independent who was effectively guaranteed to win in the next round.

Establishment parties obviously didn’t like that outcome.

There is still no proof that the powers that be have come up with, to the contrary, it was proven that one of the governing parties (PNL) was paying money for the online campaign of mr. Georgescu (supposedly the “extremist” candidate who had made use of TikTok). It is all a farce and it has helped kill democracy (or what had been left of it, anyway) in this country.

Meanwhile, domestic spending on corrupting elections is like comparing an ocean to a raindrop. Mike Bloomberg spent $300 million on ads/influencing elections in 2020.

Americans convincing their fellow citizens to do things is a very different proposition to foreign governments convincing American citizens to do things.

True. Clearly your billionaire ruling class has your best interest at heart, so this is fine. /s

let's be honest here. billionaires are the ruling class wherever they exist.

Sure. But other places at least pretend to fight back, though. EU is actually trying to resist these notions as of late.

Could it be that both allowing American billionaires to use their hordes of gold to influence elections is also bad, but we don’t have the tools to stop them as readily as foreign adversaries? Must every solution be perfect from the outset? Must we do everything at once?

But Russia was using a platform that they don't control for all of these.

Meanwhile we have a member of the inner circle of the US President-elect using the social network that he owns to explicitly attempt to depose the leader of the UK, to support violent extremists, and to support far right parties across Europe. TikTok never did any of that.

> https://www.reuters.com/world/musk-examines-how-oust-starmer...

The argument that an adversary should not have access to radio waves is definitely sound reasoning to me should the UK or the EU ever decide to ban Twitter/X.

I would fully support the EU banning X! Even though unlike TikTok it has not yet decided elections in the EU, it's clear that its owner is actively trying to do so.

Not sure why you think I wouldn't be in favor of it. With TikTok it's even more clearcut though as it has already happened beyond reasonable doubt.

>Of course they tried running campaigns in the past on Facebook as well,

So we downplaying how Russia had a big hand in getting the US President elected? Twice?

These bans are more to do with geopolitics and economic interest than security. e.g. Blanket ban on Huawei including accessing TSMC, Samsung fabs is more to protect Apple and Qualcomm.

I'm going to quote a CBS News article here because I don't feel Congress' arguments in favor of banning TikTok are being well represented. You can agree with them or disagree with them but everyone should at least understand them accurately.

TLDR TikTok is not comparable to the other services you mentioned because ByteDance is required to comply with Chinese intelligence, and China has made many public statements in recent years to the effect that it is a hostile, rival power to the United States. Allowing ByteDance to operate TikTok is granting a hostile government a tool to influence US public opinion as well as to track the locations and text messages of 170 million American citizens. Congress gave ByteDance the option to divest control so that they could get paid and TikTok could continue to operate, ByteDance refused.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-tiktok-being-banned-supr...

Why did Congress want to ban TikTok?

U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that TikTok threatens national security because the Chinese government could use it as a vehicle to spy on Americans or covertly influence the U.S. public by amplifying or suppressing certain content.

The concern is warranted, they said, because Chinese national security laws require organizations to cooperate with intelligence gathering. FBI Director Christopher Wray told House Intelligence Committee members last year that the Chinese government could compromise Americans' devices through the software.

As the House took up the divest-or-ban law in April 2024, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, compared it to a "spy balloon in Americans' phones." Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said that lawmakers learned in classified briefings "how rivers of data are being collected and shared in ways that are not well-aligned with American security interests."

"Why is it a security threat?" Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said Friday. "If you have TikTok on your phone currently, it can track your whereabouts, it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."

If the Chinese government gets its hands on that information, "it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat," Hawley said.

> Allowing ByteDance to operate TikTok is granting a hostile government a tool to influence US public opinion

I have always and will always say that the government does not have the sole right to influence me as a US citizen, and it is my right to slurp up "influence" from whoever and wherever I want to. The idea that Americans are too stupid to ingest whatever information is out there (edited or unedited, curated or not, propaganda or not) for the sake of democracy is a threat to the very idea of democracy itself.

The very fact that this argument has gained traction is the worst outcome of this entire debacle. I never ever ever thought I'd see Americans cheering that the government should limit the ability of their own fellow citizens to access information, and here we are.

I don't know how old you are, or what your lived experience has been. But the US did not invent the idea of democracy, nor did anyone promise us that democracy could actually work.

What the United States has accomplish over the last 200 or so years is remarkable, but it's colossally myopic to believe that the US has never curtailed the rights of it's citizens in the name of security. The OSS was never legal. The CIA definitely should not be legal. And lord only knows what the NSA does. But I promise you that restricting access to a Chinese mobile app is not the most egregious thing the United States Government has ever done.

TikTok can still serve data to the US, it just can't list its apps in US app stores.

I agree with your first paragraph - but people went pretty berserk when (supposedly) Russia was influencing US elections via social media. RT news channel was banned, the reasoning being it was Russian propaganda. Lots of people supported Facebook and Twitter, working with the government, silencing anything Russian back around the 2016 and 2020 elections. Did you?

Should Americans be free to access any information? What about secret military plans?

"If you have Facebook on your phone currently, it can track your whereabouts, it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."

If the United States government gets its hands on that information, "it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat," Hawley (should have) said.

The US government is motivated to have their citizens content and productive.

The Chinese government is motivated to have US citizens angry and unproductive.

While productivity and happiness are not the same thing, I am personally far less worried about how my government would influence me than how China would influence me.

I'm quite worried about both, but at least I can (in theory) vote on my US overlords, at least.

Do you think X was trying to make US citizens angry or content?

>The US government is motivated to have their citizens content and productive.

meanwhile, we're

- pretending that inflation has landed and is not being resisted by the Feds

- deregulating all the anti-trust accomplishments we made over the years to drive up prices

- pantomiming at best the idea of affordable housing as housing prices surge

- increasing homelessness and unemployment nationwide Something the modern job market does not help with as more job postings than not are fake to hire non-americans (or no one at all).

- deporting immigrants while Trump likely grants even more H1B-s to billionares,

- starting multiple trade wars because Trump is showing the definition of insanity by imposing tariffs again. When last time we lost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars over it.

But yes, banning the chinese app that actually gave some income to young american citizens suffering the worst from the above was done in a snap, relatively speaking. I'm ambivalent on the actual ban, but I can't blame american tiktok users being absolutely fervent with the bald-face hypocrisy going on.

Tiktok influencer income was never going to solve any economic problems in a meaningful way.

No, but it went in the right direction. Unlike everything else with the economy as of late (if you don't have the spare money to gamble in stocks.

Wage growth has exceeded inflation in the USA for the whole of 2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1351276/wage-growth-vs-i...

Real wages in all income brackets are at an all-time high (apart from a short blip during the pandemic), and overall have surged since the start of the pandemic. See e.g. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed-full-tim....

Real wages but not buying power. And that ignores all the unemployment rate rising (U-3 and U-6). If you had a job and kept it in 2024, you're only slightly better off than 2023 and probably slightly worse than 2022.

If you don't been devastating. Now watch it go down in 2025 and unemployment get worse for Americans as well.

And your point is? I mean you might agree or disagree but obviously the problem was a foreign entity controlling it and not the tracking part.

Also the keystroke part seem technically entirely not true and location is only partially correct.

All those arguments are bullshit as most of this data is now being sold by data brokers by American companies to who ever wants to buy China or otherwise. This ban was because unlike western media and social platforms the narrative was not under their control. It is ironic that Americans talk about freedoms that they have compared to Chinese but are willingly giving up more and more of these to their own government.

> the narrative was not under their control

Is the narrative on other platforms under their control? What does that even mean? US hardly has coherent narrative these days anyway or at least it changes every 4 years.

Regardless what benefits can you see in allowing the CCP to shape US public opinion in any way?

> This ban was because unlike western media and social platforms the narrative was not under their control.

Western "old" media and social media is filled with reporting about how useless and untrustworthy democratic governments are. If that is the narrative that the US government is setting it is weakening itself.

Of course there are very real reasons that citizens of democracies should not trust their government. Not least that in many cases government decision making has been captured by billionaires and corporations. But I very much doubt China or Russia want to see this problem solved.

Honestly don't see much difference between the goals of global corporations and a hostile nation like China or Russia, they both want democracy to fail and governments weakened. But the corporation probably doesn't want total collapse of society. If paths for a hostile government to exert control can be removed I'll happily take the small win.

All I've seen since TikTok boomed in US is that public opinion has been shaped very negatively on China by the hawkish tone in Washington.

I see zero, little evidence that TikTok brought any particular sympathy to China.

Nor I've seen a single study that has demonstrated that TikTok is any more biased than other socials. In fact it was even less than some (such as Twitter).

People seem to forget US focuses a lot on Americentrism. That didn't really change much with Tiktok and its alforithm is giving users more of what it determines to be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half the american users knew Bytedance was a chinese company before all these ban talks got off the ground.

> You can agree with them or disagree with them but everyone should at least understand them accurately.

> "[...] it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."

Is that quote accurate though? For accessing text messages, you need to give them an OS permission. For tracking keystrokes, they need to install a keyboard app and you need to select it and use it in the app whose keystrokes they're interested in. For phone records, you again need to grant a separate permission.

I don't use Tiktok but the current gatekeepers of this world don't usually allow unnecessary permissions

how can the US government just ban an app? has this ever happened before in US history? what gives the government the right to tell US citizens what apps they can and can't use? this is some North Korea tier behavior you expect to see from authoritarian governments panicking when they lose control over the narrative

Grindr was forcibly divested, so yes, it has happened

I'm sure there's case law all over the place, but effectively the Surpreme Court unanimously decided that the US definitely has a right to protect itself from foreign influence. This is diplomacy.

And for anyone living in North Korea who ever has a chance to read your comment, I'm sorry, this person has no idea what it means to live in a police state under a belligerent dictator.

a police state

There's nothing special about being an app.

And the right comes from their Constitutional power to regulate foreign commerce. The US has banned American companies from doing business with various foreign entities for a while, though it really picked up after 1990.

Father Coughlin's periodical Social Justice was denied a mailing permit during World War II for airing pro-Nazi material (such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) under the authority of the Espionage Act of 1917, which limited its distribution to news stands in the Boston area. I don't think America has faced a political rival like China since the Soviet Union; not sure if there were any restrictions on the distribution of Soviet software in the late 80s.

> I don't think America has faced a political rival like China since the Soviet Union; not sure if there were any restrictions on the distribution of Soviet software in the late 80s.

I doubt there were, because it would have been moot: the Soviets were so far behind on computer technology that they didn't really make anything anyone would want.

But more generally, the US was a lot smarter about trade with adversaries during the Cold War. There were significant restrictions on trade with the Communist Bloc that limited the kinds of entanglements we now have with China. The US got really stupid and overconfident after the Cold War ended, and that's only slowly starting to change (and this TikTok "ban" is a welcome part of that).

I think they were too busy ripping off VMS and mainframe software to send anything the other direction except Tetris

The US government is often eager to impose sanctions on foreign entities it doesn't like. TikTok ban is fundamentally no different from some of the more controversial sanctions, such as those imposed on Cuba and Iran. The only exceptional part is that this time the average American sees the effect in their daily life.

> how can the US government just ban an app? has this ever happened before in US history? what gives the government the right to tell US citizens what apps they can and can't use?

Being a government. They also get to tell you want kind of guns your allowed to have, what kinds of medicines you can take, and how much gas your car uses, and how your home has to be built.

Welcome to the real world, is this your first time here?

None of those obviously correlate to the kinds of websites you’re allowed to visit. The issue is that it’s awfully close to the kind of speech you are “permitted” to be exposed to, which is a slippery slope.

> None of those obviously correlate to the kinds of websites you’re allowed to visit.

They don't have to.

> The issue is that it’s awfully close to the kind of speech you are “permitted” to be exposed to, which is a slippery slope.

It is not. The so-called "free speech" issue with this ban is bullshit and a red herring.

It's happened to gambling and poker services. Some file sharing services. A couple services to anonymize crypto. And I'm sure plenty of others I'm not thinking of right now.

It is just an app and this ban was going to happen and TikTok had years to prepare for it and change. Another app will take its place.

This is the perfect time for Twitter / X to relaunch Vine again.

> Rather than have some sort of further regulation for what data any application can collect and present to Americans, we've just brought the hammer down on the millions of people that use this application for their livelihood.

That's why we have our existing regulators to issue fines against Meta, Google (YouTube), X, Snap, etc when they violate their user's data in the billions.

> Truly bleak.

Life in India appears to be functioning well after their TikTok ban with its 1BN users so even if this is temporary, it is not the end of the world.

This is a chance for TikTok users in the US to reflect on their addictions and hopefully change for the better. There is life after TikTok.

None of those arguments are the salient one, which is that a geopolitical adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. They could simply have divested.

Was that happening or was it just something we were worried about? Maybe we could have just banned it when there was evidence it was actually occuring?

nothing wrong with doing it in advance

but yes, there is some evidence but of course its very controversial

Maybe we could have just closed the barn door when there was evidence the horse was actually bolting?

to me this is the only important one. Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture, if they were to get in trouble for it, then what? the US doesnt have any influence over them we would just ban them and at that point its too late. realistically it already is too late. a huge point imo aswell is we ARENT at war right now, but if we are at war the amount of information china can both push and obtain through tiktok would be large enough to change the tides of a war

> Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture

Not the entire U.S. population is on TikTok. Even if a significant percentage are, your argument is that they cannot think for themselves? It is widely known that TT is Chinese owned/controlled yet Americans still used it. Even a regulation requiring disclosure of that fact each time you open it would be fine. But an outright ban on the app itself? This is a huge "feel good" moment which will not improve any aspects of the social media environment in the U.S.

they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it.

we don't let any foreign citizens work on missiles and stuff (ITAR), we shouldn't let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure

Yes, I know the law doesn't name TikTok/ByteDance specifically to be banned outright, that is just the effect.

> let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure

This is an exaggeration that a social media platform for short form content is communications infrastructure, akin to a cell tower or fiber optic line. I'd the say the same for your mention of ITAR in a thread about, again, a social media platform.

If we were serious, there would be regulations for all social media, not just forcing of U.S. ownership then saying "all good, this can't be bad since Americans own it"

it is not an exaggeration at all. it's a different layer of infrastructure, but it's still infrastructure. the mention of ITAR is an analogy, which I know you understand.

if "we were serious" about what? the issue of foreign control is not relevant to domestic companies. we could have some other regulations too, sure, but this one is reasonable.

Serious, meaning we wouldn't play whack-a-mole and instead place rules on all of them then let the free market decide. I'll repeat, disclosures could be added for foreign controlled apps. I take issue with the fact that we're making a Chinese app the boogeyman but foreign influence campaigns can happen on any platform as seen in recent U.S. elections on Facebook et. al

I think people should be able to decide which social media apps they want to use. They're not even close to reaching the levels of the "infrastructure" box you're forcing them into to justify this decision.

i dont want to argue about the definition of infrastructure. concretely, tiktok crosses the threshold of influence and risk where it is reasonable to require them to divest or close. no brainer.

>it's a different layer of infrastructure, but it's still infrastructure.

TikTok isn't "infrastructure", TikTok is software. TikTok exploits the infrastructure of the internet across the world, it is not infrastructure itself. The servers TikTok runs on is technically "infrastrucutre", but those same servers could run anything else, the hardware is not "TikTok". I could run "TikTok" the software on any hardware, even if it isn't connected to the public internet, and that would not qualify it as "infrastructure", at least not in the sense that it's servicing any population.

At the same time, foreign companies are only allowed to operate in China through partnerships with Chinese companies. Why should we play fair if they don't?

China is a totalitarian dictatorship with complete surveillance over the domestic internet. Not really comparable.

yeah and we don't want them having a surveillance tool over a huge part of our domestic internet

And you think America is not ?

The difference is communists spying on Americans vs Americans spying on Americans.

By this logic, the US should start imprisoning people who aren't vocal enough about being anti-China, right? Why should the US play fair if China isn't?

That's not actually true. JV requirements are limited to a small (and constantly shrinking) number of economic sectors. Many, many large US companies own their own operations in China.

Actually they are specifically named in the law lol, i wasnt expecting that but it very clearly up front states it.

> they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it.

this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. even if the CCP wasn't manipulating the algorithm to sway US public opinion - I don't know whether they were or not - having that option open was far too valuable to part with it.

and I think they were playing a game of chicken, honestly. they bargained for the US government being too dysfunctional - and TikTok too popular - for the ban to happen.

>this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it.

I think that's kind of trivializing the position they were in. Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement?

I don't think the law is necessarily bad, considering the national security implications, but it's a cop-out to dismiss the burden of being forced to sell a major part of an enterprise as no big deal and the owner as just stubborn.

> Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement?

to be clear, I don't think ByteDance was greedy. I suspect ByteDance would have been happy to cash out. but it wasn't up to them, they needed approval from the CCP.

if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China, I'd understand and even empathize with China requiring it be sold. they'd be right to mistrust us.

The question was whether you would roll your eyes at the startup and have no sympathy for that startup because of the "big chunk of change" they could have gotten selling it.

You can both believe that the requirement is justified and that it comes at a big cost for the org that would have to sell. They aren't mutually exclusive.

> if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China

China avoided this problem by ensuring that never happened in the first place.

No, we've seen this happen before in China, where some US company becomes popular, e.g. millions of people in China have bought iPhones.

Then China requires the company's operations in China to be more than 50% owned by China. The TikTok thing is very much "what's good for the goose", but it's also the US acting more like China the authoritarian country.

> US social media startup

That also happened, e.g. YouTube (Google) operated in China prior to 2009, but Google US didn't much like censoring things on behalf of China.

Apple China (if such a thing exists?) is owned >50% by the Chinese state?

I couldn’t figure out if that is actually true

China had a longstanding requirement that companies operating there under certain conditions had to have majority domestic ownership. It appears they've relaxed it somewhat in recent years and now I'm not sure if it applied to Apple China or not.

But the distinction is somewhat redundant with their government structure anyway. If they want to force you to do something there, how much does it matter if they say "you have to because we have majority control of this company" or "you have to because we have a one-party system and control the law"?

If the US government e.g. orders a US company to censor criticism of the US, the company can sue them and plausibly win. If you can't do the same in China, you don't control that company, they do.

> but china would rather not sell it.

why should China obey to an US request?

Of course they are against selling it, like the US government of course is against Google selling to the Chinese.

But that speaks volumes on the sad state of our democracies, they are so brittle that students protesting against the slaughter of Palestinian kids can trigger a cold war and the revanche of the authoritarian doctrines of a not so distant past.

China already wages asymmetrical warfare of all kinds - cyberattacks, IP theft, espionage, encroaching on other country’s territory, literally ramming ships in the South China Sea - subtly influencing other countries is a bridge they crossed a long time ago probably. It’s why Douyin has time limits and strict guidelines on content to make it more productive and educational, but TikTok doesn’t.

Ironic to talk about China's 'warfare' while America has over 1,000 military bases around the world.

It is much more than this.

The PLA took huge lessons from the first Gulf War that the way to fight the US was to fight everywhere but the traditional battlefield.

Their means and methods have been absolutely brilliant.

The most brilliant thing to me is to fight on a time frame that is so long, that even the idea the PLA is at war with the US sounds ridiculous to most Americans.

If this is true, Douyin will never divest of Tiktok in the US. They would rather it just shutdown in the US. They won't let the US dissect an information weapon from the inside. The company valuation can't include the information weapon value so the offer price is always going to be a joke from the Douyin side.

> to me this is the only important one. Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture, if they were to get in trouble for it, then what?

Suppose that is true. Then why are you ok with Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or any other American oligarch wielding even more influence on US culture? When it comes down to it, it's just jingoism, isn't it? China man bad, America man good.

no, it's reasonable for countries to want mass media their citizens use to be subject to their own government, especially when the country in question is an adversary, not a democracy, and not a particular beacon of free speech or human richts

Those individuals reside in the US, and are US citizens. They have first amendment rights to engage in those activities.

Singaporean corporations controlled by the Chinese government in China does not have FA rights.

That makes little sense. Why would a country be equally afraid of the influence of its citizens compared to a foreign, authoritarian regime with opposing interest? Given the choice, naturally you’ll be on the side of your own people rather than the others.

> Given the choice

I would chose China, which is on the other side of the globe, has no military bases in my country (USA have 3! two of them with nuclear capabilities) and probably what they gather from me make little or no sense to them and can't really influence me the same way (not even close to it) content in my language, repeated day and night from the top government bodies to the least popular piece of media that then spread from mouth to mouth and becomes a discussion topic at family gatherings, can.

No way tik tok remotely has that power, no way China could really do anything like that, they can at most insinuate through the cracks already present in our contemporary societies hoping it will work, but banning tik tok will only widen them.

It's one of those situation where having a common enemy should reunite people with opposing views, but it's not evil aliens trying to conquer earth we are fighting, it's social content (mostly entertainment) that this time will take people with opposing views even more apart.

And that’s where you’re dead wrong. TikTok is a vessel for any kind of content, with no visibility into the reason why a specific kind of information is displayed to whom. Just think of Field Manual 30-31B if you doubt this capability could be put to good use in a propaganda campaign, if necessary.

Sometimes, public opinion can be swayed very easily, by igniting the first spark with something outrageous; this is especially fruitful in times where the president of the United States openly opposes journalism, spreads lies, and generally fosters distrust and doubt. Lots of people are more inclined to believe a random TikTok than a professional journalist with decades of experience; what do you think were to happen if the Chinese government sees immediate value in the US government making a specific decision to their benefit, and one of the tools in their toolbox is playing a flurry of short videos to millions of American citizens, made to influence their understanding of an issue?

Most people will follow a reasonable opinion if it's the first time they're confronted with a complex situation. TiktTok is the perfect tool to exploit this, by delivering this opinion to absurdly narrow target groups, in a matter of seconds. Just because you don't notice this right now does neither mean the capability doesn't exist nor that it isn't already happening—which may be one of the reasons there is a bipartisan effort to pull through.

> is a vessel for any kind of content, with no visibility into the reason why a specific kind of information is displayed to whom

and that makes it different from IG, Facebook, X, YouTube (etc etc) how exactly?

That China is a totalitarian regime, and the USA (at least for now) is a democracy.

With all due criticism, there are still checks and balances in place in the US that make it a very different place. We're not talking about an objectively "correct" decision here, but what is in the best interest of the USA and its allies, and that certainly makes a difference when it comes to foreign influence on the own populace.

All that being said: American Tech companies are dangerous in their own right, and nothing in my post was defending these either. But that doesn't make TikTok less of a threat.

> That China is a totalitarian regime, and the USA (at least for now) is a democracy.

This is actually false.

The USA are a Republic, not a democracy. By constitution.

> there are still checks and balances in place in the US

If you are rich, maybe it's true.

I give you that.

> but what is in the best interest of the USA and its allies

The US has no allies. My Country is a vassal of the US, we cannot decide anything geopolitically relevant on our own.

Can we for example exit NATO? Of course we can't! They got military bases here, with atomic missiles, recently updated.

We can't even negotiate the release of one of our own independently without the US giving the thumb up/down.

So, please, before saying that what they do it's in our best interest, please, ask us.

It's usually not, BTW.

> But that doesn't make TikTok less of a threat

My point: same threat should result in the same response to the threat.

We should ban any non European propaganda machine on our soil.

One simple example: we all know what went down with Cambridge Analytica and yet if you look for it, you won't find any reference to trials or convictions, because there was none! it had a massive influence on shifting political view of the people in UK and in the US, but you'll only find vague scolds to bad apples that unilaterally abused of one - with a clear conscience - social network, unknowingly to the management. Despite a ton of evidence of the contrary.

How can you explain that?

We're talking past each other. You're neither a citizen of the USA nor China, and since China has even less connection to your home country, you'd rather accept their influence than the US's—which is probably fair (even though I wouldn't assume that China is thinking of you any less dispensable).

But that is not the talking point here. The current situation is the USA effectively banning TikTok in the USA to ensure national security.

The particular interests of other foreign countries are not being considered here, and I honestly don't quite understand why you think they should be? It's not like the USA is forcing this decision on everyone else.

> How can you explain that?

Now look; I'm not an American myself. I'm also appalled at what Meta and X are doing; it's all awful. But this particular decision? It's just not about us, and yet I can still try to understand why it was taken, and how I think it is the correct one, from the perspective of the USA.

> and since China has even less connection to your home country, you'd rather accept their influence than the US's—which is probably fair

the best oppressor is the one who's far.

That's why the US dominion over Europe seems better than the ones before, the USA are on the other side of an Ocean.

In my case, China influence is not an influence, I've studied China, I come from a long tradition of socialism and in particular "the Chinese way to socialism", I see them as a field of study but I think their way it's the new way of the World, capitalism the way it is implemented right now, especially in the US, it's not working anymore for the 99% (it's a meme, I know, but it's a fitting metaphor) and yet I don't buy their propaganda, because I despise propaganda, wherever it comes from.

OTOH the interest of China in me is minimal at best, they have bigger fishes to fry, while the declination of the various American social networks in each different western country (including mine) have a strong interest to sell me something, so they can make more money through ads. I am very much a good target for them and that bothers me much more.

> The current situation is the USA effectively banning TikTok in the USA to ensure national security.

And yet the POTUS himself promised to relieve the ban.

He didn't like tik tok, until he did.

And I know, you know, we all know, but don't say it, it's a move to piss of the democrats and the previous administration "with me, things will change" regardless if tik tok really is or it is not a threat to national security.

What does that say about the US actual political situation?

And what does China reaction says?

Is tik tok even banned in your country? Since your perspective is choosing between two foreign powers controlling social media, sounds like an entirely different thing than in the US.

Well, you write that it "makes little sense" then you argue that the maxim "China man bad, America man good" makes total sense...

No, then you didn't read it properly. I argue for "I trust my people more than my enemy", which doesn't sound quite as dumb and is something most people would probably agree with.

Yes, I did read it properly, just like the above comment. You claim Chinese people as your enemy because your rulers told you so. That is very much jingoism and very much on the path to fascism. Sorry that you can't think for yourself.

I do not claim anyone my enemy, for I am not an American at all. I do, however, see the situation for what it is; the USA and China are political superpowers with opposing interest. Pretending like the world is a peaceful place is just a fantasy. Hence, you can’t just ignore a communication tool used by half the population in your strategic considerations. That is not racism, it’s not fascism, its pragmatism in the face of something very powerful that could well be abused.

Exactly. They want _their_ oligarchs controlling their 99.(9)%. This ban is as close as you can get to open admittance.

> China man bad, America man good.

America man friend of president.

I'm not a yank (Serbian but I live in NL), but I'd rather neither. However, since we live in reality land and not make-believe land, that's not an option, so I'd go for the oiligarch from my own country rather than, say, a Russian or Chinese one having influence over the people in my country.

Not wanting authoritarian shitholes to have influence on people isn't really all that crazy of a stance, IMO, even if the world isn't perfect and shitheads like Zucc have similar influence.

Elon Musk is currently using his massive platform to promote neo-Nazis in Germany and far-right political parties throughout Europe. Twitter is a far greater danger to Europe than TikTok is.

And that should be stopped too, but we also just had a bout of Russian campaigns that almost got a cultist Neo-Nazi elected in Romania thanks to tiktok.

Ban 'em both for all I care, my whole point is that pretending as if the west is being evil or whatever for banning these obvious propaganda channels is absurd to me

> almost got a cultist Neo-Nazi elected in Romania thanks to tiktok.

please stop spreading lies.

The Romanian supreme court presented no evidence and instead cancelled the election results while the election were still going on (citizen living abroad were still voting)

It was just an excuse to stop something NATO did not like from happening and I am saying it as a very left leaning person, anti-fascist and anti-Putin.

What happened in Romania is a pure and simple coup d'etat with no military intervention.

Besides: if tik tok could really win elections in EU, it means our democracies aren't remotely as strong as we like to believe.

And if that's true, imagine what the US can do, having by far the largest budget for these kinds of operations in the entire World.

TikTok made a difference in Romania because Romania is the poster child for countries that should not be using "top 2 advance to the next round" voting.

They had 10 parties and 4 independents that split the vote. In that particular election there were 6 right wing parties that collectively got 47% of the vote. The top 3 of those got 19.18%, 13.86%, and 8.79% of the vote.

The highest non-right party got 19.15% of the vote.

Georgescu's TikTok campaign just needed to get more than 19.15% of the vote to get to the top 2 round. He got 22.94%.

With the number of parties they have and the lack of any parties that come anywhere near majority support they really need to be using ranked choice voting or something similar.

> TikTok made a difference in Romania

replace Tik Tok with any other social network, that serve much more people, have much more penetration in Europe and have much larger budgets at their disposal and you will see how Tik Tok is a red herring in Romania.

It's just that democracy is good only when the "right" candidate wins.

In my Country the USA have controlled the results of the elections for 50 years, often relying on blackops, infiltrated intelligence, fabricated propaganda, reactionary movements, funding terrorism and in the process killing hundreds of innocent people.

It's nothing new to us in Europe.

this is so much BS. it's not the job of the supreme court to present evidence

> it's not the job of the supreme court to present evidence

I think you meant to say that it is not the job of any supreme court to cancel free elections without evidence.

I dare you to quote the documents that link the win of Georgescu to Russian propaganda.

I am not saying Georgescu wasn't helped by Russia, I am saying there is absolutely no evidence, and if an election can be bought with a couple hundred thousands dollars spent on tik tok, are you implying I could win the elections in Romania?

It is that weak the state of democracy there?

Imagine what the US could do there, having tens of billions at their disposal.

Who said anything about Russia. He broke election laws.

Again, it's not the job of any court anywhere in the world to present evidence

> He broke election laws.

Allegedly.

It must be noted that

On 2 December, following a court-ordered recount of nearly nine million ballots, the Court validated the results of the first round of elections, certifying Călin Georgescu and Elena-Valerica Lasconi as the candidates for the second round.

The Court emphasized that annulment under Article 52(1) of Law No. 370/2004 requires clear evidence of fraud or irregularities capable of altering the assignment of mandates or candidate rankings, a threshold not met in this case

---

The votes were already re-counted and validate, moreover the court said there are no evidence of large frauds, not enough to justify an annulment, the same court that few days later actually annulled them. Isn't it suspicious to you?

And again: you're trying to move the goalpost here, the court doesn't have to provide evidence, they have to evaluate the evidence, and, by their words, *there is no evidence* of fraud.

In other news, Trump broke elections laws too (allegedly), are the US elections irregular?

In my country at every election turn there are accusations of breaking the election laws, and some irregularities are effectively happening, that does not invalidate the elections.

The will of the people is paramount and the supreme court is a servant of the people, it's not an absolute emperor nor it's their dad.

The point is that justice is blind, i.e., just. You can't have a law that says if your name is "bjourne" you get to do X, but if your name is "sensanaty" that is forbidden. So if the law privilege the oligarch living in your country over the foreign oligarch, justice is not blind, justice is jingoistic. That path leads to fascism. You might be fine with that because it doesn't affect you, for now, but sooner or later, unless stopped, the fascists will fuck you too.

That's like saying the notion of "citizenship" (which serves to discriminate between in-group and out-group) is the "path" to fascism. That's literally how ever nation-state in this world works, we live in a world of sovereign states where the applicability of law only exists in the context of each individual sovereign. Non-Citizens are not afforded the same rights as Citizens. And Citizens pledge allegiance to solely their Sovereigns against other Sovereigns.

If you don't like this, you are free to forgoe your citizenship and the benefits of the protection of the state to live statelessly.

Since corporations are not "citizens" the issue has nothing to do with citizenship. It makes sense that laws sometimes discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, just like they discriminate between adults and children. For example, when it comes to immigration and freedom of movement. But that is not an argument for arbitrarily discriminatory laws. A foreigner and a citizen convicted of murder gets the same punishment. A Chinese oligarch owning TikTok is no more of a threat to "American democracy" (or whatever, not like there's much left of it) than Elon Musk owning Twitter is.

>But that is not an argument for arbitrarily discriminatory laws. A Chinese oligarch owning TikTok is no more of a threat to "American democracy" (or whatever, not like there's much left of it) than Elon Musk owning Twitter is.

It's not arbitrarily discriminatory. It is intentionally discriminatory. As a citizen of USA, Elon Musk has sworn total allegiance to the United States and abjures any loyalty to any previous sovereign. Now whether you agree or not on his interpretation that he is acting within the interests of the USA and it's constitution is the function of the political process, of which his allegiance is the prerequisite to participate in, and his acquisence to the monopoly on violence by the US Gov.

A Chinese oligarch living in China has not sworn his allegiance to the United States, his allegiance explicitly lies in total loyalty to the Sovereign of China, and by extension, the CCP. If the interests of China and USA were to be opposed, by definition the Chinese Oligarch will support the interests of China over the USA. And right now, the CCP and USA are very much in strategic competition. Nor does the USA have any ability to enforce on it's laws on someone living in China as opposed to USA.

Elon Musk has three citizenships, American, Canadian, and South African. Your assertion that he somehow would be more trustworthy because he is an American is ludicrous.

Ever since the Code of Hammurabi justice has been based on the principle of equal treatment. That is, if you commit a crime the punishment should be metered out based on the crime and not your identity. The TikTok ban violates this principle because it discriminates based on identity. It makes no sense that it would be a greater crime for a Chinese businessman to own a social media network than it is for an American businessman.

In fact, if we look at the evidence, Musk has leveraged his control over Twitter to bolster neo-Nazi propaganda, silence his critics, and promote European right-wing parties. No such evidence exist for TikTok. If you are willing to overlook this evidence because "China man bad" then that indeed does make you a racist.

How did that influence look like?

It's subtle but super effective - they can sow discord. Just look at palestine vs israel as an example of what a major explicit influence looked like.

It is the salient point. A domestic adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. In the form of Instagram/Twitter/Facebook/etc.

the us has political and legal jurisdiction over those companies which is the entire point

Do they? Do they actually? I'm not sure the U.S. has control sufficient to exercise meaningful jurisdiction, even if it exists on paper. Big companies have too much influence in Congress and with politicians to be meaningfully reigned in in practice.

So you don't see Zuckerberg doing a roundabout on a bunch of policies with the new administration then?

You think he changed because he was worried about either admin? I think he changed because he sees the outcome of an election as an endorsement of his beliefs by the populace.

He's a billionaire, why would he put on a whole dog and pony show if he just wanted to do stuff? He'd just do it, no go on Joe Rogan as well.

No, this is about kowtowing to the new powers that be.

whether or not that's true it doesn't affect the issue of our jurisdiction over a PRC-controlled app

I think it's a stretch to say "PRC-controlled". I think the government has influence in working with ByteDance's board, not unlike in the US. This is the propaganda that has infected the American psyche. To think every single organization in China is an arm of the big bad communists. It's quite uninformed and ahistorical and political propaganda.

It's not a stretch. For example a large fraction of Chinese private companies have CCP committees embedded in them: https://www.seafarerfunds.com/prevailing-winds/party-committ... Nothing equivalent in the USA.

China's rule of law is generally very weak. "Ultimately, no matter what the laws say, it would be difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement, and the courts cannot be relied on to provide a remedy." https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/what-the-national-intel...

This is particularly obvious with the number of senior executives of key Chinese companies who have simply disappeared, at least temporarily, when they displeased the government. Again, nothing comparable in the USA (yet).

It also has on bytedance in US.

As does turkey or Germany or whoever when it comes to US socials operating in their countries.

All you need is a court order and all socials will delete whatever content is requested.

By that logic Canada, Panama, and Denmark should ban X and Meta.

those countries are not our geopolitical adversaries, but if the people of those countries want them to be considered as such, it would be reasonable to pass a similar law

Trump has openly stated plans to annex them in part or whole against their will.

That sounds pretty geopolitical adversary to me.

Trump has also said that wind turbines harm whales.

Is Trump still going to force Mexico to build that wall he promised in his first term? Dude says all sorts of things, he probably doesn't mean or remember 80% of it.

> Dude says all sorts of things, he probably doesn't mean or remember 80% of it.

Rather you don't remember the agenda and just roll with the flow.

Trump and Boris Johnson are both total arse clowns, much smarter that they appear to be, and masters of throwing a dead cat on the table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy

Trump is a _very_ good carny grifter, he can grab attention like few others can.

Remember that pledge to fix Ukraine within a few days of taking office? Probably not - he tangented off on seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Meanwhile, that basket of deplorables is being sworn in.

I mean, we could be getting closer to that point. According to a recent survey, 26% of Canadians now consider the US to be a “threat” to Canada and 6% consider the US to be an “enemy”. Those numbers is up from 6% and 1% two years ago.

https://angusreid.org/canada-51st-state-trump/

Not even that, every country on the planet is now greenlighted to force USA companies to sell themselves or banned. Every country on the planet can take control of Apple, Tesla, Intel, Qualcomn, Amazon, Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Meta's entire company, all assets, branding, IPs, technology, code, patents, cash in accounts. Everything is up for grabs. Countries can use it to help their citizens by so much, they can end hunger, end poverty, end homelessness, enable free health care, free education, balance currency and trade, elevate tax revenues, end deficits. Protection of inventor's idea, work and assets is not important. Protection of private asset is not important. Supposed communist China only does 50% JVs, and allow foreign owners control of brands, technology, IPs, revenue and profits. The supposed capitalist USA is 100%.

While I agree with your argument partially, I still find it ironic.

It assumes that we must prevent public from accessing some thoughts/propoganda as they may not be able to make right decision themselves. This is rhyming with 1930s Germany or other authoritative regimes since then.

you can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. you just cant run the app if you're china

“You can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. You just can’t sell this book if you’re Ray Bradbury”

analogy completely misses the point which is that there is no impact on what anyone is allowed to say

There is an impact on the TikTok’s app to display content to American users.

yes exactly but not on any of tiktok's users to say what they want, which is 1000x more important than the rights of the PRC to tweak the algorithm and moderation however they like

IMO the right to use TikTok in the US is actually way more important than the “right” of users to post whatever they want on it. In the same way that FB can ban you for violating content policy, and the app store can ban you for whatever reason. These are all okay because they’re all the domain of that company/entity to police. The problem is when the government steps in and forces it. I don’t think what website I can use is the domain of the government.

Even more ironic is that we have a government programming us with fears (just fears!) about what China _could_ do to justify some action they are taking. Literally running the playbook of entity they are trying to make us afraid of. Fucked up.

doesn't have to be fears, can just be good security hygiene. and china's running a whole playbook too. welcome to geopolitics!

What if my own needs for security hygiene don’t line up with our governments?

Not sure why you say "simply". There is nothing simple about it: there are issues of forced technology transfers; there is the problem that TikTok is a global platform and revenue generation is across the border. These are just things that immediately come to mind and I am sure there are more.

selling a company is a solved problem

God forbid the rest of the world stops wearing jeans, stops drinking coke and has declining divorce rates. They can't have TikTok at all costs. That will show em. We can't have them get brainwashed by others, we already have a monopoly on that. We need to keep it.

US social media companies have been banned in China for many years, so in fact the “brainwashing” you’re referring to has only gone in one direction until now.

They are probably scared their productivity rate will go down or their birthrate. They definitely know something we don't.

if you were paying attention you'd know their birthrates have been plunging for years even after the revocation of the one child policy.

Its the only saving grace the US has against China. Without it, an argument can be made that the game is already over and the US has lost.

Stiff systems like whatever version of Communism the Chinese have now, with Emperor for Life Xi don't do as well with changing circumstances and the buildup their own internal contradictions as well as the flexible democracies so there is more than just China's demographic collapse in the equation.

Good point but it remains to be seen. China has seemed to look at the Soviets and 'improved' upon their design. At the same time the West has dove deeper into their downsides (corruption) with no improvement in sight. Does China really need to last forever or do they just need to outlast their rival?

You raise an important point. Why should a Chinese company be allowed to operate freely in the U.S. when U.S. companies offering similar services are totally banned in China? Doesn’t this violate the principles of free trade and frameworks to which the two countries have agreed?

I’m not concerned so much about TikTok as spyware or data gathering or a vector for influencing young minds… though it is all of that, to some extent.

The real problem is the one sided nature of the U.S.-China trade relationship.

"Why would an adult not hit someone when that someone hits them?"

Some people believe that not retaliating stops cycles and systems. Some of us have principles beyond the very childlike, "well, they did it first".

If you believe state censorship is bad, you should oppose it when it is deployed, even if it's deployed against someone you think is also bad.

Like, I think using slurs is bad. I oppose using slurs, even against people I loathe. I have a principal, and I do not violate that principle even if it would hurt people I would consider my opponents.

Same here. My commitment to my principal that "state censorship is bad" far outweighs any feelings about China.

Sure; but negotiations involve a give and take. You can't push things in the a direction if you just tout your purity and one side gives in and gets rolled over.

I think some progress was made getting TikTok on US servers and the US hires etc. Maybe more transparency in how the company operated or observers within could have been good next steps. Maybe some mutual concession with some version of US media operating within China.

Ideally finding benefit to nation states competition benefits global citizens in some way such as the green race transition to renewables is good ... Can we have privacy and democratic media race somehow? ... Maybe not possible :)

I do think that the TikTok ban is being taken too lightly by the people of US. But the more interesting point is that your logic implies that China making a sensible move in banning US companies. There is a real question of why companies like Google are allowed to operate outside the US - if it is this big a deal to the US politicians it suggests their military has been using it aggressively against opponents with some success.

We need to keep the women on the independent mindfu*k or else the GDP will go down.

As they say on reddit, "this but unironically".

I am shocked that so many seem to root for China pointing a mind-control weapon at hundreds of millions of people? The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.

One doesn't have to support the existence of Instagram and Twitter to definitely not support the Chinese control of TikTok. I think the world would be better without closed-source algorithm-controlled short video feeds.

> The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.

Do you believe this in your heart? Or how about this: do you believe that Europe wants China to fall? Or that the US wants China to fall?

I feel there’s some uncontroversial stuff like China wanting absolute control over messaging about itself, in the context of avoiding organized resistance in its internal affairs. And it goes to extreme measures to do that.

But (glibly) “we want no criticism to be mentioned of us” does not lead to “we want the US to collapse”! There’s a whole texture to the Chinese position here, one that is different from, say, Russia actually taking more or less direct control of various places during the Cold War.

There is an element global competition no ? Controlling more of global trade is advantageous. It's not that they want others you fail; they just want a bigger pice of the pie.

you're right, but blocking the best one isn't going to sit right with consumers. if we just passed comprehensive data laws then i would be in support but one company lobbying another company to remove an app doesn't help us at all

> The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.

Have you been repeated this for years that now you take it at face value?

I'm no fan of the Chinese regime, but as an European it's my biggest ally spying on me, lying (Iraq/Lybia) and manipulating me.

China is on the other part of the world and it's history it has never bothered neither Europe nor US. In fact it's our troops that conquered and killed Chinese in millions, not them.

what? china can continue to have cultural exports like every country, it is inevitable, it simply can't own and control tiktok

lmao, it's just exactly what cpc said at the time they banning Google and Facebook

we are the same now

> lmao, it's just exactly what cpc said at the time they banning Google and Facebook

The CCP is not some weird thing that's wrong 100% of the time, so the US must always do the opposite thing.

The CCP banning Google/Facebook was wrong, but not for the reason of removing something a "geopolitical adversary has control" over, it was wrong because it was part of their extensive and illiberal censorship regime. The US has nothing similar.

> we are the same now

No.

> The US has nothing similar

this reminds me another brilliant comment:

> China bans US businesses because it has an autocratic, ethnocratic government. The US is banning a Chinese business for obvious national security reasons.

In the 1950s, China forced private enterprises to sell half of their shares to the state In the 1990s, it required foreign companies to establish joint ventures and share intellectual property as a condition for entering the Chinese market.

Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism

>> The US has nothing similar

> this reminds me another brilliant comment:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Because all the stuff you were reminded of has nothing to do with the kind of "illiberal censorship regime" that I was referring to in what you quoted.

> Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism

I feel like you're trying to taunt me, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it. Your mention of joint ventures, seems to confusing walking back from socialism with becoming more socialist, somehow.

If you look at the point of a Chinese, the block of Google/Facebook certainly can be justified by "geopolitical adversary has control". The exactly same reasoning of data security and propaganda manipulation can be applied.

You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.

> If you look at the point of a Chinese, the block of Google/Facebook certainly can be justified by "geopolitical adversary has control". The exactly same reasoning of data security and propaganda manipulation can be applied.

It could, but that's clearly not the reason they are banned in China. IIRC, foreign websites were perfectly kosher in China just as long as they fully complied with its illiberal censorship regime.

For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China:

> "In January 2010, Google announced ... they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary."

> ... On 6 August [2018], China Communist Party's official newspaper People's Daily published a column which was soon deleted saying that they might welcome a return of Google if it plays by Beijing's strict rules for media oversight.

----

> You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.

I can without hypocrisy (see above). Your ignorance doesn't make your false equivalencies true.

I’d rather have both data privacy protection through both laws and technological security AND a popular platform run by an adversary, than have neither privacy protections and only platforms that conceal their beneficiaries.

well that doesn't really represent the situation here so it doesn't really matter what you'd prefer of those two options

Why isn’t the latter the situation right now?

the latter might be your debatable characterization of the situation right now, but the former was not on the table and the only reason to couple them together is to make your point

Are they not allowed to sell books in the United States? How about guns? Can they release major motion pictures? Video games?

We have freedom of speech in this country — and for the boogeyman that China was somehow weaponizing their platform, we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.

Those communities can form else where. There can be another short form video platform.

Why do they have to? And if there is, what argument is there that we should stop just at this one platform?

Because TikTok is owned and controlled by hostile foreign country of communist totalitarians. That country would rather TikTok die than be sold to an operator they don’t control.

The operator doesn’t necessarily have to be American. A European operator would be sufficient. But it can’t be an overtly hostile nation.

All of these arguments have been made ad nauseum.

All social media companies controlled by the CCP will be banned in the US. And since all tech companies in China are controlled by the CCP that means all Chinese social media products will be banned in the US.

It’s not all that complicated. It’s not even that controversial.

None of this is strong enough to justify banning speech to me. Do you think something like the Communist Manifesto should be banned in the US? Do you think someone professing the virtues of communism on a street corner should be forced to stop?

Freedom of speech means that you can’t be persecuted for what you said. It doesn’t mean you are entitled to be given a megaphone.

You can say what you want and don’t go in prison, sure, but nobody owes you the platform.

That’s like saying “you can write whatever book you want, but the government can stop it from being sold; we aren’t obligated to sell it in bookstores”. This is a terrible argument; it conflates the government’s actions with the “bookstore”. Yes, if the app store decided to ban the app, we wouldn’t have much recourse. But the government is stepping in and saying no bookstore is allowed to sell it. That is textbook censorship (no pun intended).

No, freedom of [edit: accidentally wrote "from" earlier] speech also means that the government can't stop you from saying it. If US citizens wants to publish pro-Chinese, anti-US propaganda in the USA, and want to constitute a company for publishing a newspaper or a social media site to do, that is protected free speech and the government should have nothing to say about it.

You're conflating trade and speech, just like every other PRC defender here.

The exact same content on TikTok could be replicated by another company coming from some other country and it would be totally fine and unbannable. Which means it's not actually about speech.

You think that a social media app is trade?

Why does who runs the app matter? Stopping someone from saying something is still silencing them, even if someone else saying it would be okay.

This is just setting the groundwork for the government controlling social media even more than it already does, because they know how influential it is.

I'm not defending the PRC in the slightest. I fundamentally disagree with the government forcing a sale of a company due to its social media app. This is different from every other example of banning PRC-backed companies (ex: Huawei, TP-LINK, etc) because there is genuinely a plausible argument for natsec. With TikTok there just is no such argument, other than the video content being controlled by a foreign hostile entity. And I just fail to be convinced that that's enough to ban it. Do we ban Russia Today?

> You think that a social media app is trade?

When it crosses international borders? I'm sorry, but duh?

Do you think websites and apps somehow aren't trade? I'd love to hear your reasons for internationally used online services not counting as trade somehow, that's gonna be fascinating.

I think that considering TikTok's shop feature, it would be, but to me the dictionary definition of "the business of buying and selling commodities, products, or services; commerce" wouldn't apply to a free social media app otherwise. It lacks the critical transactional nature.

> It lacks the critical transactional nature.

I'm sorry, what? You realize they're still making money off you, right?

I don't think "if the product is free, then you are the product" is 100% right, but it's not entirely wrong either.

A business' offerings being ad-supported doesn't somehow stop them from being commercial in nature. Hence: trade.

I guess it would be a form of countertrade of attention for content. Nonetheless I don't think a "trade" of social media content and ads should be something that is within the government's scope to ban. If TikTok was made ad-free, would that change your argument?

That you don't consider it trade is irrelevant. It is trade, and trade has always been within the scope of the government -- every government, really -- to regulate.

> If TikTok was made ad-free, would that change your argument?

I think as long as TikTok is generating revenue -- or even plans to in the future, as sometimes happens for startups -- it'd count as trade yeah.

Basically everything I buy now means my money is going to China. Somehow that's ok, but letting me choose to consume their app, that's ok.

Correct. Buying things manufactured in China is not the same as a CCP controlled a social media algorithm. They're extremely different things with extremely different impacts. Thus one can be ok and one can not.

The issue isn't money going to CCP. The issue is data and CCP control of the algorithm.

yeah because the issue isn't money going to china its prc control over a major social media platform

> How about guns?

Imports of firearms and ammunition from China to the USA have been banned since 1994 [1]. IIRC Chinese companies were caught selling rifles and other gear to known gangs in California and that motivated the law.

Firearms imports are also much more restricted generally than most other categories. More than one manufacturer has reincorporated in the United States because of the regulations.

[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355...

Fair enough — was wrong on that point, and happy to be corrected.

Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of a platform. Their speech isn’t limited.

Imagine saying this if the government shut down, say, a newspaper publishing things they didn’t like. “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of a platform; the reporters can write elsewhere.”

Freedom of the press is guaranteed in the first amendment, "freedom of the platform" is a non-existent right.

And what makes TikTok different from a newspaper, fundamentally?

Both are publishing stories written by others (reporters for the newspaper, subscribers for TikTok), and taking decisions on which stories to publish (through direct editorial control for the newspaper, through the algorithm + some direct editorial control for TikTok).

Newspapers are not platforms; they are publications. They have editors who set editorial policy. They are selctive about the content they publish and who writes it. And they are accountable for what gets published.

TikTok is mainly accused exactly of having an editorial policy, via boosting certain content that its owners prefer and de-prioritizing content that they don't. So this is a non-sequitur. And even when talking about false information, newspapers face 0 legal risks for publishing false information, unless it is defamatory (and even then, it's a civil action, no state prosecutor will investigate a paper for publishing false and defamatory information).

No one is talking about “freedom of the platform”. The literal text of the First Amendment with regard to these things is “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. If the government shuts down a venue because they don’t like what people are saying there, they are abridging those people’s speech.

Idk for the US, but where I live, newspapers have special laws that protects them more than other platforms. Pretty sure it’s the same in the US.

That is not correct.

> we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.

They just move to new place. Loads of online communities have died/migrated for various different reasons over the years.

> We have freedom of speech in this country

This doesn't impose on your freedom of speech at all.

Just because you have the right to say anything, doesn't give you the right to say it where you want.

> This doesn't impose on your freedom of speech at all.

By this logic, the US government should be able to ban any newspaper that is publishing articles that they don't like: it doesn't encroach on the freedom of speech of the reporters of that newspaper, they can just speak somewhere else. They don't have the right to say anything at that particular newspaper, just in general.

Of course, in reality, banning a publication (TikToK) because you think they may publish stories that you won't like (propaganda for Chinese interests) is an obvious violation of the first ammendment and a form of government censorship.

tiktok isn't a publication and the ease with which people can post on other platforms as well as their relationship to the platform is relevant

I agree that there are differences between a publication and a platform, but they are relatively subtle. And as long as the argument is "China through TikTok can influence which content is popular or allowed to be published at all", then that is leaning into the publisher-like aspects of TikTok, not the platform-like ones: and it is precisely these rights that are protected.

Just to give an example of what would be concerns of the platform aspect of TikTok, that would be concerns about the ability for the app to deploy malicious code to users' phones, or the amount of data that it siphons off legally. But those are de-emphasised in favor of their control on content, which is precisely what's supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

No, because the ban is based on TikTok coming from a geopolitical adversary, rather than being based on actual content (which is why the Supreme Court declined to stop the implementation of the law).

Huawei is also controlled, even more directly, by a geopolitical adversary, and is not banned for regular consumers in the USA.

The reason TikTok being owned by China is considered a problem is because it could allow China to control what American citizens see on their timelines - the content.

The US passes many laws about traffic safety, and yet much of US road design is actually deeply unsafe. Inconsistent sure, but that doesn't mean they were lying about the unsafe things they did ban.

> The reason TikTok being owned by China is considered a problem is because it could allow China to control what American citizens see on their timelines - the content.

It's the PRC control part that's the key here though. There's nothing banning even blatantly pro-PRC content on other platforms. You can find plenty of tankies praising China over the US to high heaven on places like Reddit.

> It's the PRC control part that's the key here though. There's nothing banning even blatantly pro-PRC content on other platforms. You can find plenty of tankies praising China over the US to high heaven on places like Reddit.

Then it's just virtue signaling. If the message is not a problem, then who says that message is irrelevant.

Note: to be clear, I'm neither a tankie nor in any other way supportive of PRC policies. They're a horrible genocidal dictatorial regime with imperialist tendencies who are propping up other similarly horrible regimes like Russia or North Korea.

> By this logic, the US government should be able to ban any newspaper that is publishing articles that they don't like:

Freedom of speech is that an American person cannot be blocked by the government saying what they want.

There is nothing in the first amendment that protects you from where you can say what you want, nor is anyone entitled to give you a platform.

That's why the US has "freedom of speech zones" which are basically cages far away from where they should be protesting.

TikTok was banned because it's owned by a foreign government, not freedom of speech. If the Chinese government had removed their connection to it, it would not have been banned.

China doesn't allow foreign corporations to operate within their borders. why should we?

there is no First Amendment right for Chinese companies to operate within our market. there is no First Amendment right for RT to be carried on US cable networks.

if TikTok were a website, it'd be different. it'd be one thing if the US were blackholing tiktok.com. but TikTok is an app that sells ads, and they're not entitled to sell ads to US businesses or publish on US app stores.

> China doesn't allow foreign corporations to operate within their borders

It's not true, just to clarify it.

Many foreign corporations operating in China, only if they:

1. Keep all user data within the border. 2. Cooperate with censorship

TikTok meets the first condition in the U.S., and I think the issue lies with the second condition.

I could be wrong, but I thought you have to operate a subsidiary in China, which is majority Chinese-owned. for example, Azure China is operated by 21Vianet, who also owns all the infrastructure.

Yeah, that's the part 1, all data must be within the border

so Azure in China can only be ran by a Chinese entity

If you look at it from the other side, it's like Tiktok must be hosted by Microsoft/Amazon but not datacenters in China

>China doesn't allow foreign corporations to operate within their borders. why should we?

China is a dictatorship where people have no rights. America was built on the principle that the government shouldn't have the power to tell the common people what to do.

The idea that the US government doesn't have the power to regulate trade, especially with geopolitical adversaries, has never been some bedrock principle of America.

> there is no First Amendment right for RT to be carried on US cable networks.

There might be, but it would be the cable network's first amendment right to carry them, not RT's right to be carried.

The argument in court was kind of backwards, nobody violated TikTok's rights by taking them off the app store, but you could fairly easily argue that Apple and Google's rights were violated by telling them that they can't carry it. That would, presumably, require either Apple or Google to bring a lawsuit though, and they seem to want to play nice with the incoming administration.

I think those comparisons are poor - TikTok is service that could be used to send instantaneous information to 170 million users in the US. It's potential to cause a problem if it's controllers choose to do so is many orders of magnitude broader and faster than those examples.

> Are they not allowed to sell books in the United States?

They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.

> How about guns?

This doesn’t have anything to do with media.

> Can they release major motion pictures?

They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.

> Video games?

They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.

The people in these communities still have a right to assemble and say things to each other. It’s more difficult to do so on TikTok after the US distribution ban but it’s ByteDance who made it impossible with this play; this service shutdown is not a requirement of the law.

Trade and speech are not the same thing, and this sort of conflation is really tiresome.

If we banned China from importing video games into the US, that would be a trade issue.

It's very ironic you bring this up though, since China is famously very strict about what foreign media it allows in, and really about how foreign businesses in general are allowed to operate there.

its a horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone.

america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions. banning media is a lack of trust in americans ability to formulate opinions. what the point in having media and democracy if you dont think people can make good decisions based on it?

I think this perfectly communicates why it feels so wrong that the government has banned tt. Its an implicit acknowledgement that our leaders feel that foreign influence will resonate with the public in a way that doesn't benefit the status quo.

Foreign manipulation of social media is literally why Trump was elected.

Yet banning it creates the largest opportunity for manipulation whereby Trump gets to play the hero to a very large number of Americans.

they're not banning any media or expression though so its a non-issue

So many people focus only on TikTok instead of their fellow citizens' rights that are being trampled upon. Even NYT writers happily insinuate that all will be forgotten in no time. Cutting people's social links is not benign. An American may be happily watching Italian content, and when you cut her link it doesn't follow that the Italian creators will move their content to some other platform accessible to that American. Same for Americans with foreign followers. Americans may also have trouble reconnecting with American creators. It boggles the mind that these losses are given so little thought.

> america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions

I’m rather confused how do you think that is somehow connected with:

> horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone

If you believe that then surely you must also believe that it was never “alive” in the first place?

Americans certainly didn’t have unrestricted access to any type of media in ta past. In fact it was heavily centralized and controlled by a small number of entities. One might argue that the decentralization starting with cable television/etc. and then internet led us to where we are.

Everyone used to be watching the same handful of television channels (which were relatively “apolitical” anyway) and a small number of available newspapers. It’s rather obvious why it was much easier to reach societal consensus on most issues compared to these days…

Half of the people are sub-100 IQ. It's very naive to understate the stupidity of some people and their capability to do harm if mislead. Especially when it comes to weaponized social media content from a main geopolitical adversary. Letting Tiktok continue will do far more harm to democracy than banning it.

"...there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Amazing that we don’t hear this book quoted more often along with 1984, we seem to be living funhouse versions of both.

Note that this preface was not allowed to be published together with the book, it was censored last minute by the publishers. The public narrative about Animal Farm is almost exclusively that it is an allegory for the USSR, an attack on the false equality that they professed. The preface explaining that it's very much intended to attack the UK and more generally European and US governments' tendencies is even today not included in the vast majority of printings of Animal Farm.

Those publishers must have been tragically born without a sense of irony.

They are just practicing Oligarchical Collectivism.

It's obviously a criticism of both, the farmers and the pigs. Orwell was not fond of the USSR either.

Right, I should have been more clear, my comment does come off as suggesting it's not about the USSR at all, which is obviously false.

I wasn't aware of this proposed preface[0]. It's a great read and is, interestingly, somewhat applicable to the TikTok situation. However, you are incorrect, the preface does not say the book is intended as an attack on the UK, European, or US governments. What it does discuss, is how, primarily, the British intelligentsia resisted the criticism of the USSR in the book because of the wartime alliance between the UK and the USSR. The preface makes it quite clear that Animal Farm is in fact an attack on the USSR specifically.

0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Actually, I'm not sure if this is the preface the OP was talking about, in fact it's not clear to me who the author of it is. There's another preface[0], from the Uranian edition of Animal Farm, that they might have been referring to.

While it does contain some criticism of the the UK, quite expected as Orwell was a socialist, it also doesn't claim that Animal Farm was really about UK, European, or US governments.

EDIT: I found the primary source[1] of the unpublished preface, it does list Orwell as its author.

0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

1: https://archive.org/details/TheTimesLiterarySupplement1972UK...

The book gets quoted quite enough. But quotes are really bad arguments.

Here’s one that flies in the face of the Orwell’s:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

- Karl R. Popper

In practice we’ve seen both ways play out badly. So clearly we can’t just hope that full freedom is good, and good guys will win.

You misunderstood Proppers thoughts. There is interesting article about this topic.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/yes-you-do-have-to-tolera...

To me it feels more like living in a William Gibson novel crossed with Idiocracy

"And TikTok has special characteristics—a foreign adversary's ability to leverage its control over the platform to collect vast amounts of personal data from 170 million U. S. users—that justify this differential treatment. [S]peaker distinctions of this nature are not presumed in- valid under the First Amendment."

Unanimous decision to ban TikTok from a divided Supreme Court, 2025.

China can buy private data from Metastasis just like anyone else. This argument is bunk.

What is Metastasis?

Meta.

It‘s spreading cancer.

Play on words I assume.

- Meta - Facebook et al

- Stasi (an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. It was one of the most repressive police organisations in the world, infiltrating almost every aspect of life in East Germany, using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent

I doubt Meta is going to sell their most valuable asset to a competitor.

Buying aggregated data is in no way comparable to owning the collection method itself.

Why?

In both ways, users do it voluntarily, by agreeing with terms of use. You don't have to use those platforms.

Despite the downvotes, this is entirely accurate.

The privacy / data protection angle on TikTok is a red herring.

There are other ways China, or anyone else, including any one of us, can get their hands on vast amounts of personal data about anybody. It just costs more than operating a profitable social media platform.

All you need to do is flash a few bucks and talk nicely to a data broker, or Meta (remember Cambridge Analytica?) and there's nothing the US Government or you can do about it, because it's entirely legal. The minimal barriers that are in place to protect the data going into "wrong" hands are trivial to bypass.

And if that doesn't work, the next level up in difficulty is hack the same organizations. China has made an industry out of that.

this is not really the main concern. the real danger posed by TikTok is the ability to easily influence on a large scale.

I feel like it's important to include "the ability for China to easily [...]" since that's probably the top reason TikTok is affected by this and not others who are identically able to "easily influence on a large scale".

I don't get how more people don't realize this.

Yes, all domestic media has also been corrupted by various agencies that wish to psychologically manipulate the masses. Some of this manipulation is to get you to buy things, while other wants to get you to think, act or vote a certain way.

The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Allowing that adversary to also control the platform itself is beyond unsafe.

The tricky thing is that the US built these tools, and opened them up for everyone to use. This libertarian position is what will ultimately be its downfall. They can't just go and block access to these tools for everyone outside the US, or heavily regulate them, as it will cause an internal uproar, but that is what they must do in order to survive this war. China is in a much better position in this conflict since the government has total control over the media its citizens consume (barring the rampant use of VPNs, which they can shut down at any point). They have no external but massive internal influence.

I feel like everyone should watch this 1985 interview of an ex-KGB agent[1]. It's more relevant today than ever before, and explains the sociopolitical state of not just the US, but of many western countries as well.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8

> The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security.

Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. They're just words. Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.

Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?

> Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion?

I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

> It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words.

It matters when those words cause internal social division to the point where it starts destabilizing the nation. This is what we've been seeing in the past decade+, particularly in the US. One of the effects of information warfare is confusion in the victim, where they're not even certain if they're under attack, let alone by whom.

> They're just words.

Words are never "just" words. They're powerful and in the Information Age they can be weaponized at a massive scale thanks to the global platforms the US pioneered.

> Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.

Perhaps. But not at the rate it's falling apart as the subject of these attacks.

> Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?

You can think of this however you want. But the fact of the matter is that those same freedoms you enjoy and require from your government have put you in a worse position geopolitically than countries that don't have them. Maybe it's time to rethink your priorities as a nation and sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good. Is watching silly videos really worth witnessing your country tear itself apart from the inside out?

I'm not taking sides in this matter, BTW. The US has been the perpetrator of many atrocities around the world, some of which have impacted me personally, but I think the world would be in a far worse position if other countries were policing it. I'm just pointing out that from this outsider's perspective... you're screwed.

There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction. We can converge on the truth only through unrestrained discourse. The lesson of the past ten years isn't that information is dangerous. It isn't, except to censors. The lesson is that trying to centrally control information flow is misguided and wrong

> sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good

No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.

> We can converge on the truth only through unrestrained discourse.

Really? How has that approach worked for us so far on the open internet? Do you feel that societies have been able to converge on the truth? We can't even agree on what that means. When everyone has the ability to spew their version of "the truth" with equal reach, what you get is a cacophony of signals that makes it impossible to separate the signal from the noise. And if that wasn't enough, we're in the process of adding generative AI to this mix. Insanity... But I digress.

I'm not arguing for censorship, mind you. I'm with you in spirit in this argument, even though I don't really know what the solution might be. What I'm saying is that the utopia of an open and connected world that the internet, web, and, later, social media companies have promised us is clearly not working. Instead, it has allowed interested parties to propagate their agenda for personal, financial, political, etc. gain, playing the masses as pieces on a game board, which has only served to further drive us apart. It might be time for people to realize this, and actively reject this form of manipulation, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon. It just seems silly to me to fight for the freedom to consume digital content on specific platforms, without even considering the global picture of what might be at stake.

> There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction.

That's a very naive perspective. If inconvenient narratives can't be censored, then counter-narratives can be just as—if not more—effective. With the ability to reach millions of eyeballs via influencers or by just running ad campaigns, anyone with enough interest and resources can shape public opinion however they want. We know how powerful this is because we know that advertising and propaganda are very effective, and we've seen how democratic processes can be corrupted by companies like Cambridge Analytica. So, yes, information can indeed be weaponized.

Information warfare is nothing new and has existed long before the web and the internet. The internet has simply become its primary delivery method, and is the most powerful weapon of its kind we've ever invented. I urge you to read up on the history and some of its modern campaigns. Wikipedia is a good start.

> No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.

Great. Enjoy it while it lasts. :)

Yes, so you're agreeing with me.

> Unanimous decision to ban TikTok from a divided Supreme Court, 2025

Nope. Unanimous decision that the First Amendment does not prohibit banning TikTok.

yes very brave and original to quote 1984 but actually its not totalitarian in any way. the means here are extremely reasonable and there's no free speech issue.

It's not a quote from 1984.

ok then you are very brave and right

Thats a Huxley's work.

Wow I did not read this preface in high school when we did Animal Farm. Say it ain’t so Mr Kramer.

It was censored in your version.

I will point out one of Orwell’s points doesn’t hold up - Mihailovich did collaborate with the Germans towards the end of the war.

> destroying all independence of thought."

Not all of it. Just some of it. No need to see everything in such a black and white way.

Also Orwell was obviously not talking about major entities run by other countries. Do you think he would have opposed stopping newspapers directly run by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union from operating inside Britain?

Instead of censoring. Just teach the populace critical thinking to question the validity of all propagated information. Have public debates on what is correct about what the enemy is saying and what is wrong. Also teach the populace to have the same scrutiny about their own governments lies, like WMDs and such.

> Just teach the populace critical thinking

Let’s JUST invent practical nuclear fusion and sentient AI while we’re at it. Both would be probably significantly easier to achieve..

Nobody has ever tried. For obvious reasons.

How are you supposed to manufacture consent if it works?

That’s patently false. There are many schools and teaching methods that teach critical thinking. Attending higher education usually does the trick IF the student is actually motivated in the slightest.

Massive part of YouTube is about teaching critical thinking for those who can’t attend for many reasons.

Still doesn’t work because of the many roadblocks and mostly laziness in general.

This won't do. If we were to go 400 years into the past to Western Europe, you would see that about 15 percent of the population knew how to read. And I suspect that if you asked someone who did know how to read, say a member of the clergy, 'What percentage of the population do you think is even capable of reading?' They might say, 'Well, with a great education system, maybe 20 or 30 percent.' But if you fast forward to today, we know that that prediction would have been wildly pessimistic, that pretty close to 100 percent of the population is capable of reading.

Literacy is a rather straight and easy to measure concept.

Critical thinking is somewhat more subjective and harder to evaluate (i.e. I wouldn’t give a passing mark for your comment).

> For obvious reasons.

For starters me and you (let alone other people) probably have a very different of what “critical thinking” even means besides the very basic stuff.

It’s like “world peace”…

I'm not gonna put a dissertation in a HN comment. I wouldn't have to if more people practiced steelmanning.

Even if you did. It’s very likely that I or someone else wouldn’t a agree with your reasoning and argument. In fact the more time you spent developing your reasoning and arguments the more stuff there would be for us to disagree on.

Which is the problem. You can’t just impose your understanding of “critical thinking” (based on your personal context, experience, ethical/moral/social views, prejudices and biases) on everyone and expect it to solve anything. In fact if you did it would likely lead to something truly terrible..

This is because you assume I mean something else than teaching the population to be critical of all propagated information. I'm not claiming to have privy too truth.

No. I assume exactly that. There is no objective and unbiased definition of “critical thinking” (unless you think it can be “taught” to someone in less than 60 minutes) let alone of specific teaching methods

The US government forcing spinoffs is a core tenant of antitrust enforcement. We’ve seen similar enforcement applied to other applications like Grindr [1].

The fundamental issue is ByteDance ownership. Forced divestiture due to legitimate concern for potential abuses is perfectly acceptable whether by a financial or national security rationale.

———

1 - https://www.axios.com/2024/04/27/biden-tiktok-sale-grindr

Can you imagine implementing regulations that are not for your safety?

All data that they collect are given by user voluntary, by agreeing with their terms of use. Instead of banning, educate about how data harvesting works and why it matters. No one is learning from censorship.

The average consumer doesn't understand nor care to understand about the implications of what they are agreeing. That's why consumer protection laws exists. Because, humans are, by a large, very stupid about most things.

Do you consider yourself as stupid?

So the alternative is to defend democracy by letting a foreign authoritarian entity take over your country in the name of (their) freedom?

I don’t get how can Americans be so insecure about themselves and have such fragile trust in what they can achieve as a country. This idea that foreign authoritarian regimes should be respected as much as their own people and system is just baffling.

This ban was precipitated by TikTok refusing to bow to pressure to censor (pro-Palestinian) content that American politicians don't like.

The politics of this are exactly the opposite of that you're saying. This is about restricting democratic rights.

Do you have evidence of this compared to what is known, that ByteDance China has in-office seats for the CCP? These conspiracies and what-aboutism make no sense to me.

Many American politicians, including the people leading the charge for the ban, have openly said that this is the reason.

Senator Mitt Romney put it very bluntly [0]:

> "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites - it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."

Or maybe Mitt Romney is just another conspiracy theorist?

0. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...

None of those 1A arguments held up and the SC decision did not use "count of Palestinians" AFAIK. I am sure some of the initial support was drummed up for reasons like what you mentioned but ultimately that is not why its being banned. But going back to your point, mentioning democratic rights for a CCP app is hilarious.

That's why Mitt Romney thinks it was banned.

The people who formulated the ban failed a few times previously, both because they couldn't gain enough political support to push it through and because it was legally shaky. The Gaza issue was what led to overwhelming support for a ban in the US Congress and Senate (as Romney says), and the ban was intentionally formulated in such a way as to try to legally sidestep the First Amendment question (in a highly dubious manner, but the SC isn't going to overrule Congress here).

> mentioning democratic rights for a CCP app is hilarious.

It's the most popular app in the United States. Calling it a "CCP app" is just braindead. Of course banning the most popular means of expression in a country because the people are expressing themselves in ways that political leaders disapprove of is anti-democratic.

All major corporations in mainland China have direct ties to the CCP. To think otherwise is foolish, their business and government are intertwined. At the end of the day all ByteDance china had to do was divest their ownership in the company.

I sympathize with you and agree the initial support definitely utilized the conflict in Gaza but it goes beyond the conflict and centers itself around the ability for the CCP to influence how the algorithm works. To not understand how much control the CCP has over mainland entities is surprising.

> their business and government are intertwined

This completely depends on the company. There's no evidence that TikTok has been used as a Chinese propaganda vehicle, and the issue that led to TikTok being banned in the US was TikTok's refusal to bow to pressure to toe the line on Palestine/Israel. Unlike Facebook, TikTok did not suppress pro-Palestinian content, and that led to broad Congressional support for a ban.

So have you done business in China or are you just guessing? I have and in China and other single party communist countries and absolutely all business, especially at large size have direct lines to the party. I am not sure how you can be so confidently incorrect. You can be some small time manufacturer and you are still beholden to your local governing party members with at the very least annual kickback gifts.

You keep latching on this idea of Palestinian content. You do realize this is much larger than that conflict?

I've spent plenty of time in China and know how things work there, in general. The idea that everything is run through the Communist Party is just a lazy, scaremongering generalization that's become increasingly popular in the US since 2016. There is such a thing as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," and it's the anti-China derangement that has become the bipartisan consensus since Trump took office in 2016.

The people pushing the ban say it's about Israel. Other Senators and Congresspeople say that's why they and their colleagues supported a ban. There were always some people who wanted to ban TikTok, but they were never able to get majority support in Congress until the issue of Israel came into play. Banning the most popular social media platform in the United States, a platform that more than half of Americans use, is a big deal.

So you do business in China or you have visited China? You totally skirt the topic but it’s clear you lack knowledge of how business is done in China.

I don't have much of a horse in this race, and I wouldn't consider myself pro or anti-China but I do a significant amount of business in China just shy of 9 figures annually in terms of revenue and I have never once dealt with their government in any way shape or form.

I have absolutely no direct line to them, never given them any kickbacks, and I visit the country once or twice a year.

I have no doubt that there are businesses that do have significant dealings with the CCP, I would never believe otherwise, but the idea that every company has to have a direct line to them is objectively untrue. I know many other people who also do business with China and its mostly the same story, none of us deal with the government and frankly I would be very uncomfortable if ever I had to.

> I have never once dealt with their government in any way shape or form.

It’s likely you have and didn’t know it. The “political officer” or otherwise-embedded party official often has another title or “non-official cover” as they say. Communist governments have operated this way since 1918.

You can also read that as an example of his opinion that TikTok is selectively amplifying anti-Western sentiment. You _can_ go for "it's all about Israel", but you really don't have to.

Or you could just read the statements of various politicians of our government:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn: "It would not be surprising that the Chinese-owned TikTok is pushing pro-Hamas content"

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.: "We’ve seen TikTok used to downplay the Uyghur genocide, the status of Taiwan, and now Hamas terrorism"

And of course, Romney's explicit statement as well, when in context, it's actually far worse because it seems he is very concerned about lax fact checking on TikTok (which American social media platforms announced they are doing away with): https://xcancel.com/ggreenwald/status/1880979821901332773#m

I fundamentally disagree with all of these representatives. Americans are allowed to view all sides of every geopolitical issue and make up their own minds and vote according to their own beliefs. We should never ever be "shielded" from propaganda because we are smart enough to vote for and lead democracy, so we should be trusted as smart enough to ingest any geopolitical information existing in the world.

It's one thing to be exposed to varying viewpoints, it's another thing to have a nation state wage propaganda campaigns against you on your home turf.

If 999/1000 tiktoks you see are of one particular viewpoint, you don't think the audience is going to draw specific conclusions? Our species now has mis-information tools that we couldn't have possibly imagined even just a decade ago. We're in the midst of a real struggle to work out how your average person can identify it. It's disheartening how little progress has been made in this area.

> If 999/1000 tiktoks you see are of one particular viewpoint, you don't think the audience is going to draw specific conclusions?

So what? If you watch InfoWars all day you'll also draw specific conclusions. If you watch PressTV all day you'll also draw specific conclusions. The point is that Americans can draw whatever conclusions they want, and that limiting info to only "approved" sources is authoritarian

On that topic, Twitter/X is now heavily pushing InfoWars.

Of all the social networks, Twitter is currently the most concerning, given the far-right sympathies and political connections of its owner.

Maybe, but I think Americans have the right to watch Infowars all day if they want to. And X has the right to push it all they want, imo

Is it not so much the exact topics but the control of a recommendation engine that’s at the hands of a government that is a general adversary to the West?

So what? Recommendation engine is just the same thing as a newspaper editor who picks and chooses what is read by everyone in circulation and what's not. But we allow foreign adversary newspapers to circulate in the US (and did during the height of the Cold war too)

Would you give the same freedom to an opponent in a hot war? I.e. if there had been widespread TVs during WW2, would you allow NaziTV to televise their content to your population totally uncontrolled?

Would you allow an unfriendly adversary to buy up your ports, critical infrastructure, and food/water supply, or would you block certain transactions in the name of national security?

Could be - the amount of online commentary when that war broke out was all encompassing. Almost like it was a highly volatile combination of an rightfully angry/scared population and paid information campaign by US foreign adversaries.

have you been on twitter?

The UK and Australia are much more insecure

https://x.com/ausvstheagenda/status/1880136652678656311

https://x.com/PlanetOfMemes/status/1865399407220306313

Since the general positive sum game is breaking down all around the world, everybody should feel insecure, and you will be insecure, if you are not already.

Those aren't free countries (as in bill of rights levels of personal guarantees).

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is solution to you?

Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree. If you believe that something is wrong, use arguments, educate, inform... It's hard to implement pathological behaviour in well informed and educated society. Fragile society, however, is easier to be manipulated with and lead to hate, violence and wars.

> "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is solution to you?

What's wrong with this solution?

agreeing with the point the question makes here; the game theory of global politics does not work with the same morals that we prescribe individual people

It makes the whole world blind

No, there'd be one person left with an eye. They could just dodge the last blind person.

It doesn't actually solve anything, rather it makes the baseline lower by hurting everyone. I.e., it's an anti-solution - something that actively makes things worse, and can only make things worse, but masquerades as a solution.

An example of an anti-solution is lowering crime by making something that was illegal no longer illegal (see: public transit vs automobiles). Or, reducing the incidence of something by making it illegal while simultaneously increasing it's necessity (see: abortion). Or, solving wage inequality by protesting minimum wage increases.

Better to lower baseline for everyone than to be the naive sucker that gets taken advantage of

Do you consider yourself as naive?

Right, but objectively it's not, because both parties experience either same or worse outcomes. So it's not better, by definition of "better".

I agree, a "well informed" society would be wonderful but we have a long way to get there and even then, highly educated people are not immune to misinformation and propaganda. Not everything is black and white, there are always shades of grey and these are difficult to navigate.

I think imposing certain limits on various freedoms, including speech is required for a functioning democracy. I also believe that there are deeper issues if the populace of a nation no longer respect the decisions made by its highest court of law.

“Tit for that” is a solution for the USA on a great deal of topics, from reciprocal taxes to reciprocal visa requirements for travel. Why not reciprocate social media site access too? It’s just another product after all?

All "governments" are authoritarian. The USA was founded by authoritarian white slaveowners. So yes, Gen Z and TikTok users will definitely baffle all those who accept US imperialism above all else.

Let's be honest: "Democracy" in the USA is and always has been a game for the rich, especially since the 1908s when Reagan and Thatcher decided that China should be the top dog in the world order.

People just want to live happily. Simple as that. TikTok gives a lot of people a feeling, a snippet, of a little bit of freedom and connection with others. All US media makes people fearful - FOX "news" is literally just fearmongering for boomers and their children who can't afford homes of their own. CNN and MSNBC is just fear mongering against boomers who watch FOX "news". Facebook/Meta/IG/WhatsApp is an extension of these fears into the virtual world and TikTok offers something better.

Jokes on the USA though. RedNOTE is gonna close the cultural divide between America and China and Americans will realize just how far the boomer generation and those who have been elected to uphold boomer beliefs really left younger/current generations behind.

China has won technologically and now begins the cultural victory.

I can foresee, sadly, that there will be an unnecessary loss of lives in the short term however for both the USA and BRICS nations. Hopefully I wind up being wrong.

Lots of hyperbole and feelings but not much evidence.

TikTok is not some bastion of freedom, they did win with critical mass and a vastly superior algorithm. All media makes people fearful, you speak so highly of China but have you consumed mainland Chinese media before? It is like Fox on steroids, packed full with stories that paint China as the victor and America as a dangerous and silly country.

Calling a victory in technology is laughable, mainland manufacturing is incredible, one of the best in the world. Products in China have caught up and in some spaces exceeded western brands. China is still missing out on innovation in high-tech, thats why they have been caught so frequently trying to steal corporate secrets.

RedNOTE is not going to prove anything to americans except the disdain the Chinese have for Americans joining their social network and the level of censorship that exists in a mainland app.

It is like you are a propaganda machine and ironic enough it reads just like a mainland Chinese news article. If there was a conflict everyone would lose out. I am surprised anyone would foreshadow it. China unlike Russia seems to still think through the lens of economic interests, I suspect nobody in the current regime would want any type of conflict. While they may have a military its entirely untested both equipment and men.

But America IS a dangerous and silly country. Source: I live here.

I can already tell by your hyperbole and lack of critical discussion. It shows.

"lots of hyperbole and feelings but not much evidence" is applicable to your comments more so than others...

> why?

Years of TikTok usage

If your democracy is so rotten that a few teens dancing can bring it down I have bad news.

TikTok is much more than “a few teens dancing”, for a huge swath of population it’s how they get their news and how they find stuff.

And if their lives weren't a end stage capitalist hell scape those news would have as much effect as Radio Moscow did during the cold war.

It is only when a system is failing that it becomes susceptible to destruction by indifference.

Two fantastic comments (yours and GP[lim_trw])- accurate summing of the state of affairs.

Another plausible theory is that the literal billions that have been invested into optimizing content for hyper attention have led to improvements in propaganda methods since Radio Moscow.

So, in summary, you believe that since the USA is on its way down, it should not bother fighting back anymore?

You might have a point, though. With the new administration and its explicit focus on short term populism, it’s hard to stand up for anything.

In summary the Us government should spend its time improving the lives of Americans, and not find better ways to lie them about the quality of their lives.

or you just think it’s a hellscape because you’re bored and on your phone where people make money by telling you it’s a hellscape

I though TikTok algorithm won't let you choose what to find.

If you get news primarly from Tiktok you are ill-informed and should reconsider your information diet.

Oh man have I got some bad news for you

There was a classified briefing on Tiktok presented to Congress last year about why it is a threat to national security. No doubt the Intelligence Community had a good look inside Tiktok/Bytedance's network and determined it is not something we should allow to operate in this country.

Similar story with Huawei.

There was one about Iraq too. Mushroom clouds in 45 minutes I believe was the highlight.

That's strawman that has nothing to do with this topic. If you follow this line of thought, everything that is discussed in classified briefings is being done in bad faith, which I agree is easy to argue for, because we tend to pick and remember only bad examples, lack of trust in the system probably doesn't help much either. So even if you're right about trusting Gov in general, your argument is still wrong.

If you follow your line of thought we could never point out that processes have made mistakes in the past. Yours is the only strawman.

any classified briefings on X/Twitter being controlled by an immigrant? :)

Why only to the Congress, does not the American people have a right to know? Why be tight-lipped about it, certainly it's not some military or nuclear technology matter.

Yes I also trust the federal government unequivocally and without question. They didn’t tell me any details but I don’t need any, their word is good enough. In fact I will tell others so they are aware of the new gospel.

Yes, especially the same people who said Iraq had WMDs. Trust them implicitly.

You don't believe that. So don't try and use that as justification. Alternatively if you do believe that you don't understand how power on media platforms works.

Are you really so dense as to not understand how social media is used to influence elections, and how that is significantly different from any media format that has previously existed?

Allowing free publishing isn’t allowing anyone to take over anything.

>So the alternative is to defend democracy by letting a foreign authoritarian entity take over your country in the name of (their) freedom?

People being convinced to change their countries geopolitical policies seems to me a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a democracy.

If the american people would like closer relations to china and vote accordingly that seems to me to be the whole point of democracy.

China engaging and supporting that is also a perfectly legitimate means of achieving its goals, no? Or would you prefer that instead of convincing the american people of that, they should instead bribe or coerce their politicians behind closed fdoors?

Remember that Americans are already at each other's throats. Half the country is literally terrified about what will happen tomorrow. The other half of the country is ecstatic. For at least some of them, they are looking forward to doing exactly what the other half fears. The rest are relieved that they will not have to undergo the terrors and tribulations of the last four years.

The country is constantly on a knife edge. It takes only a tiny shift to cause a radical change in the power structure, and good reason to think that power structure will be used against you.

It is indeed remarkable that the country has achieved anything at all when it spends so much time cowering. Nor is that new, but modern media seem to give it more immediacy.

There was only 64% election turnout in 2024. People are not as politically radicalized and polarized as media companies say to increase engagement. Some people are, but the problem is being exaggerated for clicks and views.

> People are not as politically radicalized and polarized as media companies say to increase engagement

I disagree based purely off of my own life and experiences. The shift rightward over the past 10 years is palpable. It's not surprising historically at all - the US has always been composed of almost entirely conservative, individualistic attitudes and then little pockets of progressiveness here and there. They never last, rather the hope is just to get as much done as fast as possible in that time frame.

Certainly, policy that would be unthinkable 15 years ago is par for the course now. I think that's just undeniable, and speaks to the radicalization of the US.

I'm guessing that you live on one of the coasts and mostly associate with certain classes of people? In the real world, people are not at each others throats. They're mostly interested in talking about their kids, the price of milk, sportsball and debating the best way to prepare briquet.

Take a deep breath, we're all gonna be okay.

I take it you don't know any trans people, gay people, or those whose lives depend on government services.

While you are preparing brisket they are expecting to lose rights and have friends taken away. For them it is not going to be ok.

My comments just went right over your head. Didn't comprehend a word I wrote. It honestly makes me sad.

Everything will be okay, nobody is losing their rights. Try getting out of California/NYC some time.

People have lost rights/freedoms over the course of the last 8 years though.

Which constitutional rights have Americans lost over the past eight years?

So it has to be enumerated in the constitution to be considered a freedom lost?

Moving the goal post there isn't it?

I believe it's arguably clear the right to privacy and freedom of movement have been attacked/stripped though and those are constitutional rights.

It is day one and trans people can no longer get a federal id matching how they look.

Fuck right off about "gonna be okay", asshole.

Interesting that you think to have the authority to tell others what “the real world” actually is. That doesn’t seem to work.

Maybe you should try to get out of the technofacist mindset?

I'm struck by the complete lack of confidence in statements like this.

We've got the whole world wearing blue jeans and listening to our music, mostly communicating on our tech platforms. English is the default language for international business. One Chinese social media company and its game over? Have some faith in your culture.

Do you realize that the same exact logic can apply to any US company abroad? Not just social networking, _any_ company. We are everyone else's "geopolitical adversary" too. Or is it "different" and I "don't understand"?

There must be other options than banning Tiktok or losing to "the enemy".

You gotta get off Facebook and touch grass man

“Fragile” trust? That trust has been beaten out of us at every turn for an entire generation. There is nothing fragile about American exceptionalism or the dream of achievement; we’ve just been shown repeatedly that we are becoming the third-world bully regime in the eyes of the world and, increasingly, in our own.

Every bad thing we’ve been taught to believe about China or Russia, it turns out we do too and often worse. So what loyalty should we have? What has democracy and capitalism done for us but bankrupt our seniors with medical debt and addict our children to iPads and amphetamines?

I’d love to be able to trust my government and the American ideal again, but don’t tell me I’m weak for second-guessing the whole con game this century is turning into.

the problem is basically your whole worldview is wrong

This feels like a shallow dismissal, and I’d love to understand what you’re trying to communicate in more depth.

”What has democracy and capitalism done for us...”

Radicaly increased wealth. I guess you have access to drinking water, food, place to sleep and be warm at cold sessions. It wasn't a standard few decades ago and still it is not fot most in the world.

"I’d love to be able to trust my governmen..."

Do you really believe that government solve your problems?

Over the last 40 years, China’s version of socialism with state-controlled markets have lifted more people out of poverty than ours. Democracy and capitalism have not benefited me in my lifetime. My taxes go to fund foreign wars and lining the pockets of American oligarchs.

“Radically increased wealth”, for who? Government has never solved my problems, only created more. My point is that I would have been doing better under China’s system than ours.

> My point is that I would have been doing better under China’s system than ours.

I’m not sure how you can say this with a straight face. China hit rock bottom after the cultural revolution and they had a lot of “the only place left to go is up!” going on. This is like someone saying their salary increased 5X from $10k to $50k and calling that better than someone’s salary only going up by a third from $200k to $300k. Yes, the improvements have been great, and while your life would have improved more under Chinese rule (velocity), do you really think your position would be better off? (And imagine only making $50k or $100k/year and houses still start at a million bucks!)

If you don’t like government meddling, China probably isn’t the place for you. Yes, they might not pay attention that you aren’t following some rule for awhile, but the rule exists and they will eventually hit you with non-compliance.

But you still voting, do you?

Completely unrelated, in the passage of the New Testament where The Devil Quotes Scripture, the aforementioned Devil quotes a Psalm to Jesus, a Psalm that Jesus presumably believed in, a Psalm perfectly applicable to his current situation, in an attempt to trick him into making the wrong decision.

It's weird to me that that idea could be such an important part of culture as to become a common saying yet have so little impact on actual discourse.

> In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.

Lots of respect for this guy and his writings but it’s naive to believe people are thinking independently because they can watch TikTok. It just becomes a different propaganda vehicle; the thoughts will still be dependent on the messages they see.

> the thoughts will still be dependent on the messages they see.

Sure, but even you would agree that if you have even less venues to discover said messages, it'll get more and more heterogeneous?

Maybe TikTok isn't "The last standing beacon for Freedom of Thoughts" exactly, but banning it certainly doesn't get you closer to plurality of opinions.

> but banning it certainly doesn't get you closer to plurality of opinions

I think keeping it around is worse. While we’re at it, we need to go after American social media, including entertainment news. People should commune in person and get their opinions from interacting with their community.

We will fight for peace until the last bullet

Yeah. If you don't stop it here, where does it end? Next thing you know, you'll have a guy doing millions of dollars of business with proxies for the Russian government in the White House.

I see this thought posted frequently. It makes no sense to me... what power could China exert here that wouldn't also be a bad power for anyone to exert? Surely, if they started exerting power on their platform in ways people didn't like, people would leave, right? And also, what's the path to pressure bytedance by the ccp?

It all just smacks of protectionism and isolationism to me.

Why should they? This is not the early 1900s anymore.

That might make policy sense in a world where those same adversaries couldn't just pay a western social media company to exert the same control. But since they can, it smells much more like protecting a monopoly than anything to do with preventing control.

you don't refuse to close one security hole because you might have another. we could make the latter illegal too! it might already be!

I would love to make advertising illegal but it doesn't seem likely to happen.

The place to protect against this kind of threat is in English class, and by regulating in favor of transparency (re: the algorithm), not by censorship.

The latter will just create a fight for control over the censorship infrastructure, and given our cyber security track record and habit of letting companies do whatever they want, that's not a fight I think we can win without becoming all of the things about China that we find objectionable.

This entire thread could be removed and only this comment should be kept. Unfortunately people have bought into this idea that all players in this game are following the rules. The US government is an extremely complex system and there is no way they would have reached a bipartisan conclusion on this if there wasn’t strong (confidential) evidence to support it.

> The US government is an extremely complex system and there is no way they would have reached a bipartisan conclusion on this if there wasn’t strong (confidential) evidence to support it.

I'm sorry, but this is not a good assumption. It has not been the case historically.

LOL, and what is your opinion on the Iraq War? Let's hear it.

Downvoted for speaking truth.

Downvoted for whataboutism

It is a relevant example that directly contradicts the general statement made about the motivations for bipartisan consensus, not whataboutism.

And when Meta was used to undermine our (UK) elections, we should be able to force a sale to British ownership too then presumably?

Yes?

Then why does the law require divesting to only a US owner instead of also allowing NATO or major non-NATO allies as owners?

Personally, I think it’s a bit of both. There’s definitely concern about Chinese control but it has also been seen as a business opportunity.

Surely the risk is others respond, would X/FB not be at risk of same sorts of responses from geopolitical adversaries, which given recent events might be more of the world than it was a decade ago?

Twitter and Facebook are already banned in just about every one of the U.S.’s adversaries. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc etc all ban them.

Your comment makes me quite alarmed, to be honest. Are people really this clueless about what goes on in the world? Do they not already know that American platforms are already banned in countries that are adversarial to the US?

The white house statement said that TikTok “should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership”. If other regions, such as Europe, applied that logic the outcome would be messy. Imagine applying that to X (Musk is part of government) in Europe.

The actual law says what countries cannot run a social media site in America. It doesn’t say it has to be American owned. Just not a country that we’re in a quasi-cold war with (China, Russia, Iran, NK, are the usual suspects.)

If America were a hostile nation to a European country, then said country probably would (and should, heck) ban an enemy nation from running a social media company in their borders. As it is, America is on friendly terms with “Europe” and so the worry isn’t really there.

This is why it’s important for nations to not get to the point where relations are this bad in the first place. It results in isolationism and distrust, which is a slippery slope that results in zero-sum outcomes that are worse than if we had open trade. But that ship has sailed long ago. China has openly declared itself to be in utter opposition to the US and has been engaged in grey zone warfare with us for a decade or more. The next Cold War has already begun.

You mention Europe, which is ironic: China is allied with Russia and is openly funding its invasion of Ukraine. Something the EU hasn’t really done anything to help with, because of a complete lack of resources spent on an independent military from the US’s which they have always counted on to defend them. The idea of EU states souring US relations so much that they welcome China, the very country that is funding the invasion of their continent, is utterly insane. If Germany/UK/France/etc had any kind of sense they’d ban TikTok too out of solidarity.

Twitter is owned by a South African who is making overt attempts to control our government and our public opinion.

Elon Musk has had US citizenship for over 20 years.

I guess that means his interests align with the average American's

No. It means he's an American. And in the context of the TikTok ban that matters.

Why does it matter? Why should the machinations of China scare me more than the those of an oligarch?

Because that’s the way the law is written? And you were the one that added the South African qualifier?

I’m not making a point about the usefulness of the law, only the _definition_ of it. In the context of the ban Musks American-ness is more important than his South African-ness and both are more important than his wealth.

so he’s a fucking immigrant, eh?

Yes, he has 12 children.

birthright citizenship, eh?

Personally I think Twitter is a great example of why tik tok should be banned.

It’s a clear example of how leadership can skew the algorithm to try to influence things.

Now, in twitters case they are wildly obvious about it and everyone is starting to think they’re a joke.

Tik tok isn’t run by a buffoon so anything they do would be far more subtle

Twitter is also showing why these type of companies need far more regulation applied. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad to take other actions in the meantime.

How will you react when other countries start banning Meta/Twitter with the same argument?

America's adversaries have already banned Meta/Twitter, what's your point?

The word "Adversary" is literally the most important word of GP's sentence. They're a country that we're in a cyber cold war with, and they have god mode control over our public opinion.

It would make about as much sense to let Moscow buy spectrum in the 1950s and broadcast TV directly to every American's home. In what universe does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

> broadcast tv directly to every Americans home

To take this further, they would be beaming specific content tailored individually for each American.

This is why social media is so damaging for foreign adversaries to control. They’re beaming personally tailored propaganda.

I would love my country to ban Instagram and Twitter. No need for American propaganda.

Edit: from your comment history it looks like you’re from turkey. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if turkey banned instagram/fb/X. In fact I’m kind of surprised they haven’t already.

There are a very large number of posts which follow the format of the parent post, each clearly aiming to make TikTok appear equivalent to US-owned social media platforms, while ignoring the actual issue that TikTok is an active propaganda arm of the CCP.

TikTok's manipulation of the feed has been proven through extensive public studies: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning

The pressing need to ban it on security grounds likely extends further into non-public knowledge - Let us not forget that in the current political landscape it's pretty hard to get both major parties to agree on anything, then to actually also vote that way: but that's what happened with regard to TikTok.

Exactly! The China and Russia supporters are crying and trying all sorts of deflection and false equivalence. never mind that

2.) This means that any future Chinese apps that get popular will get banned, and no need to go through any court challenges since there's precedent and law

3.) The traffic from the original TikTok will just keep getting split and syphoned, until the magnificent seven claims most of it

> The China and Russia supporters are crying

except this is not what's happening, the opposite is true: the "manga" (make american nato...) supporters are screaming that China and Russia are finally defeated in the propaganda war, while China and Russia do not care about the tik tok ban.

It's already a victory when the enemy castrate itself and goes against the sentiment of their population, especially the young ones, out of fear that something might happen, but there's no evidence it has happened yet not that it is going to happen anytime soon.

When you think that tik tok is so dangerous that your democracy could fall because of it, well, you got bigger problems on your hands.

I see Russia not caring, but to say China doesn’t care in the slightest doesn’t make sense. Especially with a company at that scale. There wouldn’t be a push to the Red Book if that was the case.

> goes against the sentiment of their population

If you read this thread you’ll see that it’s pretty divided. I for one don’t care that it’s gone and even welcome the ban. I dislike that China has a firewall for American companies, but will gladly enter our market.

> There wouldn’t be a push to the Red Book if that was the case.

Isn't Red Book pushed by angry titk tok users, just like blue sky was the reaction to Musk buying Twitter?

> I dislike that China has a firewall for American companies, but will gladly enter our market.

China was invited by the USA in the USA market.

In exchange for their cheap and educated labor force and growing market.

Ask Apple if it was good or bad for them to exploit the Chinese market and labor.

It's the USA that pushed to invite them in the WTO.

Is it too much to ask to the USA to reflect a little before acting?

Thank you! I can't believe how much defense I see of TikTok on here. Is this website being specifically targeted for astroturfing, or has TikTok been that effective in spreading its propaganda? (And which one is scarier?)

> Is this website being specifically targeted for astroturfing

Of course

It is not defense of TikTok to point out that all platforms are practically identical: centralized, closed source networks that collect ridiculously detailed data about millions of people, and are in a position to process that data for all kinds of fun stuff like surveilling people's physical movement, creating recommendation algorithms, performing sentiment analysis, and using those tools to try to manipulate populations, influence public thought, and sway elections.

There is no behavior that TikTok exhibits that isn't equally applicable to every major social media.

I don't particularly care whether right now, the CCP happens to use that manipulative potential for its own ends more than the US does. It shouldn't be hard to take a principled stand against dystopian surveillance.

I don't understand people who correctly point out that TikTok is a "vector for influence of public opinion", but somehow think that's only a bad thing if it's controlled by a "geopolitical adversary".

> I don't understand people who correctly point out that TikTok is a "vector for influence of public opinion", but somehow think that's only a bad thing if it's controlled by a "geopolitical adversary".

By your implied logic, the US should allow Chinese police to function on US soil as the US already had US police on US soil.

As I read more and more comments like GP’s In this thread, I keep getting this vision of a man in France in 1940 welcoming nazi tanks to his town because “well, we have a military too, how is this any different, they’re just a geopolitical adversary” and “well, we had a corrupt politician once last year so our government is just as bad”.

Baby steps! Let's do both. Let's rid ourselves of a foreign adversaries influence, then let's ALSO get more competition and reduce big techs influence. Why not both?

To be fair, you're the astroturf for domestic Big Tech.

Maybe! Hard to tell. Personally I don't think big tech should own this space, I'd love to see a variety of companies and lots of startups. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if I'm astroturfing.

I'm a US citizen, not being paid by China, and I've never used TikTok, but I think this ban is bad. I believe Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are bigger threats to the people that live in the US than China is. This ban gives them more power by eliminating one of their largest competitors. That's bad.

The solution is not to allow TikTok but to reduce the influence of social media in the first place.

As exposed by whistleblower Frances Haugen, Facebook's algorithms favored content that generated anger and division, which in turn increased user engagement. Facebook now wants to return to that algorithm.

Agreed. I would be all in favor of a law that applied to Tiktok, Facebook, X, and all others equally. Singling out Tiktok is just a transparent handout to the US's tech oligarchs, which is worse than doing nothing.

I've seen this TikTok thing turn staunch leftists into libertarians overnight.

I think a lot of normal and applicable arguments aren't entirely valid when the company in question is more or less an entity of a political adversary.

When is manipulating the feed sufficient reason to shut down a service, though? It's also known that Twitter selectively amplifies speech based on owner whims, and it's not guaranteed that this amplification is not to the detriment of the USA / enrichment of foreign governments. The idea that we should trust an American owner to manipulate vs. a foreign government seems...well, just stupid. It seems like the manipulation should be disallowed across the board.

Because the US can investigate and regulate a domestic social network as needed.

They can't do that with offices that are parties offshore, owned by non-Americans.

Serious question, why not? Going off recent examples, Brazil seems to haven o trouble doing so.

I'm not convinced this accurately reflects the capabilities of law enforcement or the enforcement of laws on international entities. GDPR, for example, is a regulation that applies to non-EU companies when they operate in the EU. I don't believe it's accurate, then, to say that it's impossible for a country to apply regulation to foreign entities running web services.

Additionally, I'm not convinced that the US is actively investigating such things, at least formally, on domestic social networks anyway. Twitter's algorithm at some point was tweaked to amplify Musk's posts. Was there a formal investigation or certification process, or were any controls put in place, to ensure that nothing Musk Tweeted would ever be subject to foreign influence, and thus enable amplification of foreign propaganda or ideology? I quite doubt it.

I didn't think Twitter was even required to inform the government that his Tweets were being boosted. Researchers discovered it. (And I think there were some leaks from Twitter developers, via journalists.)

It just seems weird that we seem to put very minimal effort into verifying that domestic networks aren't pushing foreign propaganda, but then our logic was excluding foreign social networks is that they might push propaganda. We don't even know that the American ones aren't, and we don't even seem to care very much.

"They could simply have divested"

What an odd thing to say. Why should a company that started the biggest social media app in a decade "divest" it to US oligarchic interests when it's a global application? It makes no sense.

This is the largest affront to American freedom since the patriot act, and the fact that people are celebrating it on some red-scare bullshit is terrifying.

I am personally disgusted that my government thinks it should be in the business of telling me what apps I can have on my phone. I am a grown adult, and a taxpayer, and the US Government has no fucking business telling me where I can watch and/or post videos.

Maybe it's time to build a decentralized alternative so this never happens again.

It's hard for China to claim that they are being treated unfairly, when US companies are generally only permitted to hold a minority 49% interest of the Chinese operations.

The US is just reciprocating.

Chinese investors own ~20% of ByteDance. Mostly own by large funds (State Street BlackRock, Sequoia, etc)

It's amazing to me that people don't recognize the influence that this kind of platform has. I know it goes against the prevailing idea that American corporations are evil, but American companies are interested in making money while China is interested in the disruption of western society. They are not the same level of risk.

I'm not sure about that. The US and China sort of need each other, at least from an economic perspective. If one faces disruption, the effect on the other is guaranteed. I'm not saying they like each other, but the relationship is symbiotic in many ways.

Anything that tips the scale in favor of one tips it against the other. Why are Americans arguing for the US to have less leverage in this relationship? It's downright illogical.

US is way less dependent on imports than China is dependent on exports

China is not a geopolitical adversary to me. Why would I want to beef with China when China has never done anything to treat me poorly?

I do not use TikTok so maybe I do not understand, but how does TikTok influence its users? I thought content comes from other users. Does TikTok decide which content to promote? And if so, what exactly are they promoting that is threatening to the United States?

Plus people forget that China has long blocked every US social media app. Fair's fair.

You can always seek asylum in China if you want protection from the "evil American tech monopolies".

You could just not do that and reap the benefits of both. It's super useful to play them against each other that way. Real the benefits of living in one place, while using the others to get access to things you couldn't otherwise. TikTok for Palestine activism, Yandex for piracy, whatever. None of the overclasses in control of these warring states gives a shit about any of us. Profit from their conflict instead.

Of all the bleak things in our world right now this one doesn’t even crack the top 500

I’m glad you’ve limited your number of concerns to allow yourself to focus on what matters. Just curious where did replying on hacker news rank?

shills going strong in this thread

Would those be shills for the Chinese or US government you’re referring to?

> but the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever.

No, they do not. These are US products, not the foreign communist party psyops project.

You use these words like they are axiomatically evil.

Like, "it's a foreign project"... so is my Nintendo. Are you afraid or worried about foreign things? A lot of the world does a lot of things better than the U.S.

"It's a communist party project"... first of all, plenty of great communist projects out there, and the Chinese communist party is really only a very very narrow slice of communism so your brush is absolutely over broad. But second, so what? What do you own that didn't pass through China in some capacity?

"It's a psyop"... it's an app with funny videos on it. I think you need to set that tinfoil hat down and pause a bit. Does it have a different cultural root used to moderate it? Sure! Are they making moderation decisions I would make? No. Does that make it psyop? Of course not. Don't be absurd.

There’s some serious false equivalence here.

Is Xbox prevented from competing with Nintendo in Japan, under similar conditions as Nintendo competes with Xbox in USA?

Are there representatives of the Japanese government sitting within Nintendos offices overlooking what Nintendo is doing? Is that government run by a single party?

China doesn’t allow US social media apps, mostly because they want extreme control over the content on their side of the firewall. But probably also because they know that US intelligence services could force the US social media companies to give them access to information or make changes to their code.

So it’s utter madness and ridiculous naive to allow Chinese companies unfettered access to the US market when we know that the parent company is forced to be under direct supervision of the communist party of China, and we know that the party and the PLA along with its intelligence services are essentially one and the same entity.

At the very least this gives Chinese companies undue advantage in the US market. It’s much easier for them to leverage the code they’re written in both the Chinese and the US market, making them more efficient and thus letting them undercut US companies over time.

I can’t believe how naive nearly all of the comments defending TikTok are.

(Sure the “psyop” part of the other comment is a bit much, but I took it as hyperbole and I think most readers would)

You say I'm naive, I say you've been had by jingoistic propaganda. You are more concerned about a foreign boogeyman, I'm more concerned about the one that's governing me.

The US government has shown, time and time again, what it will do with power once it uses it.

That’s a weirdly obtuse argument to make.

It's the same country that allows a practical monopoly of NVIDIA on GPUs and Intel on CPU (or at least an oligopoly), and then pretend "foreigners are out to get us". It gets one to know one.

TikTok lied under oath about what they do with user data. Also the requirements they have for their managers and executives amount to them operating as an unregistered foreign agent, since staff are literally required to uphold China’s national interests:

https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths...

You combine that with the lack of reciprocal access for American and European social media apps to the Chinese market, the mental health issues TikTok causes, the lack of safeguards in TikTok that inexplicably Douyin has (China’s TikTok from the same parent company), and on and on - banning isn’t just justified but the only sane thing for all countries that aren’t China to do.

And yet last time I mentioned this on HN I was met with disbelief and straw man arguments. How times change online.

It's an app.

Some money could possibly be made by some people legitimately.

The bleakest part is people who didn't recognize how extreme a gamble it is if that's what somebody wants to pin their entire livelihood on.

Whether they wrote the app or not.

The "house" just drew the winning hand, and all the gamblers lost everything they had on the table at once.

That can happen at any time, and almost always happens eventually, that's why they call it gambling.

It's not so bad if you don't bet everything.

You’re obviously not involved in the content creation world. My partners main income source is selling a product via Instagram. While she puts a lot of effort into building her brand on other platforms to diversify as she recognises the risk, once you have an established and profitable audience on one platform you’d be silly not to continue to put effort into growing that. Also what works on one platform is different to the others, it’s not a simple copy and paste. People generally are aware of this and try to diversify, but it’s not as easy as you might think.

Posts that get 5m+ views on one platform may only get 5000 on another.

Those arguments have nothing to do with why TikTok was banned. The banning is purely a geopolitical move. TikTok is the only major social network that is (hugely!) popular in Europe and North America that is not controlled by the USA - and even worse for US geopolitical ambitions, it has major ties with China.

This is not some conspiracy theory: this is 100% of the official reason that Congress voted on this. They fear that China has influence through TikTok into the US public, and could use this to sway public opinion [unsaid: just as the US does with Facebook or Twitter]. They also fear that China could surreptitiously spy on high-value targets through the TikTok app - which is why it was forbidden two years ago already from any device used in doing business with the US Government, including the business phones or BYOD phones of all federal employees and contractors.

Interestingly, part of the fear of influence ties back to Gaza. Here is a quote from Mitt Romney about this [0]:

> SENATOR ROMNEY: A small parenthetical point, which is some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts. So I’d note that’s of real interest, and the President will get the chance to make action in that regard.

This is exactly the sort of issue that the US fears: losing control of the public narrative, especially in the USA, but more broadly as well.

[0] https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-mccain-i...

Interesting that a Romainian sounding username wouldn't mention the mess with Romanian presidential election where tiktok played a major role. The threat seems very real

The Romanian elections were a debacle in many other ways. So far at least, our authorities have done nothing to actually arrest the fascist lunatic that almost won, nor to bring any concrete evidence that he did anything other than breaking campaign finance laws by paying for TikTok like any other influencer might while not declaring this money in his campaign fund disclosures.

Actually, they didn't even bring any evidence of that, except for the fact that he claims in official documents and public appearances that his campaign cost 0, which is such a bold faced lie that it barely needs dismissing.

But no, I don't share the court's apparent opinion that, but for TikTok, this lunatic wouldn't have won. All suggestions are that, will he be allowed to run again (which is theoretically the current status quo, him not having been put under any sort of judicial control!), he will win again, despite his vastly diminished TikTok presence. Turns out, to my great personal sadness, that many of my countrymen, idioticaly, actually liked the fascist and weren't (just) manipulated by TikTok.

No, it was the Romanian National Liberal Party that used TikTok for campaigning in the first place:

https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-...

The campaign was co-opted by trolls (could have been bored teenagers) to use the hash tag for their purposes.

The win of Georgescu seems organic, he is projected to have the same results in May:

https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-election-2025-hungar...

In the context of the EU it is in no way surprising that a "far-right" candidate gets 30% of the votes. Austria, France and the Netherlands were pioneers in 2000 already.

Germany's AfD had 12% after Merkel's immigration disaster and now was 21% (in polls) after the US has repeatedly used and insulted the EU in the past 4 years. In 2019 pro-US sentiment was deservedly at an all-time high in Germany, that is no longer the case.

Do people believe that the US government's control over Instagram/Twitter/whatever are similar to the level of control China's government has over TikTok?

I'm not that educated on the subject (I think most people who are making claims either way about this aren't), but all my priors indicate to me that China's government collects data from and controls content (to be shown only to the western populace) in TikTok much more than the US government with US social media companies.

I understand the comparison, but I think the magnitude of the problem is very likely to be much higher with TikTok.

I don’t think US government controls social media like china, but after the constant news about all the social media CEO’s hanging out with the president I am not surprised many people start to get a feeling that something is up.

> Do people believe that the US government's control over Instagram/Twitter/whatever are similar to the level of control China's government has over TikTok?

Control comes in different flavors. Is the US government covertly and directly compelling corporations like they did during Snowden era? Probably less today if I were to guess, and certainly less than China.

I think today the threat is not government overreach but rather that the tech industry and government have so many shared interests and back-channels that coercion is no longer needed, and probably the big ones would throw hissy fits if so. Instead, I think it’s a mutual back-scratching operation. During covid, the infrastructure was laid out, with corporations running the information errands. I think both sides found that to be much more comfortable, and yes I do believe that became the prevailing MO afterwards.

Race riots? Palestine protests? Luigi support, and similar current uncomfortable issues transcending culture war daily jabs? ”Lightly suppressing” such speech has corp-govt incentive alignment, and frankly might be necessary to keep people in check given the growing inequalities and dissent. Any large uncontrolled social media operation is a risk, even without amplifying or suppressing anything inorganically and deliberately.

> but the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever

...well most of those service are banned in China.

> This serves only to enrich our American tech monopolies

I suspect many people see that as a worthy cause. They may not understand what it implies, but dammit, they don’t want none of that foreign spyware.

Please be serious.

Any suggestion that TikTok poses no real threat to U.S. interests is staggeringly naive. Imagine if CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC were all owned and operated by the government of America’s greatest adversary—that’s essentially what we’re dealing with. Meanwhile, Chinese citizens are explicitly barred from accessing TikTok in China, and American social media companies are shut out of China’s market altogether. There’s no credible argument that TikTok doesn’t undermine U.S. interests; the only reason people are reacting so emotionally now is that our government took far too long to address this blatant national security risk.

It's more like, if China started their own news network and American citizens began to prefer it over CBS, NBC and FOX because of the extremely shoddy level of content available on those local networks.

Sure. But the danger is still identical. That doesn't change the overall point.

Channel 5 already did that, it's more like of if they did that and also got to inject each viewer with a little bit of cocaine multiple times a minute while being able to figure out exactly what to show them next and how much cocaine to give them.

In that case, what exactly would happen? Specifically, go into details.

Here's what would happen: Nothing. People already think America is a terrible country to live in. Sure, certain interest groups would be preferred, probably Palestine over Israel. Maybe something instead of Saudi Arabia. But for the average American? Why should they care?

> Imagine if CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC were all owned and operated by the government of America’s greatest adversary—that’s essentially what we’re dealing with.

That analogy falls apart by making use the hyperbole of comparing ownership of one social media application to the ownership of all major broadcast media television channels. Or is the U.S. so socially conflicted and institutionally fragile that it not handle one single social media application being owned and operated by 's/the government of/a private company from/' its greatest adversary?

The broadcast TV analogy may be more applicable if Instagram, X, YouTube and Twitch were all operated by the oligarchy of a single geopolitical adversary... which arguably could become the case for the E.U. from tomorrow 20th January 2025.

It is not the same. These news networks as well as papers like the NYT still count as authoritative sources. Almost all pundits on YouTube, even on dissenting channels, still use these to know what is going on.

The real danger is indoctrinating teenagers. For example, China could spread extreme wokeness and tell girls (indirectly via influencers) that having children is oppressive. This sort of propaganda is easier and well known to US adherents of Bernays. The US is world leader in this.

What? Wasn’t it China at one time that placed limits on the number of children you could have?

Obviously in this context it is about China indoctrinating US girls. TikTok is banned in China.

China itself had the one-child policy because the country is full, like the EU. The US has declining birth rates.

> Wasn’t it China at one time that placed limits on the number of children you could have?

But considering the statistics at that time, one could say that it was reasonable. It is better to limit the birth of children rather than, after some time, let natural selection to kill the weakest for starvation or lack of proper environment.

One could say this ban is reasonable. Better to remove an app that is clearly linked to misinformation and spreading unrest in the US than to let the app continue to make it easy to spread lies and manipulate people.

That argument only works if it applies equally. With same grounds one could ban X or Truth Social as well.

I don’t believe X or Meta or any other large platforms should have free rein to enable foreign influence with falsehoods and misleading attribution like they do. A ban may not be appropriate, but it’s outrageous that X and Facebook are effectively used by foreign powers to pinpoint target propaganda to individuals to sway elections. This is unprecedented and must be responded to.

Why is China your enemy? China couldn’t care less about the US. They’re doing their thing now, and they’ll keep doing their thing when China overtakes the US as the top global power.

Why are you so afraid of China?

Do you think there will be a war with the US? I find that extremely unlikely given both nations have atomic bombs and nothing to gain from war.

Do you think the US is gonna get economically bullied by China? Well, that’s what the US does to the rest of the world right now. Ironically, that’s why most of Africa would rather partner with China for economic development than with the western powers. But even then, the US is big enough that it can insulate itself from most of that.

Are you afraid that China will start a war in Taiwan? They might, but didn’t the US start a war in Iraq as recently as 20 years ago. Not to mention all of the other middle east conflicts the US is involved in.

You can’t stop China. They have 4x as many people as the US, and just as big a landmass with plenty of resources. China will become the top global power. But that doesn’t mean that your life will be any worse.

It means that your politicians won’t be able to act with impunity as they have for the past century. It means your billionaires will have to compete with China’s billionaires for investment. It means companies will have more competition.

But at the end of the day, your life won’t change. It will probably get better if we’re being honest. China is not your enemy.

“Millions of people that use this application for their livelihood” - citation needed

A bit over dramatic. I don’t foresee soup kitchens overflowing from TikTok influencers suddenly unable to house or feed themselves.

Even if that is true, it might be better that they start getting their livelihood somewhere else which makes whole society more healthier.

Better to have US spying on you than China.

If only it were possible for the “millions of people that use this application for their livelihood” could apply the skills learned from doing business on TikTok to create their own platform, find a new platform, etc.

> that use this application for their livelihood

what? you will survive without cat videos or whatever the fuck kids are watching these days

> the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever

Those apps aren't controlled by a foreign adversary with a history of ignoring data privacy laws (example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...)

It seems like tiktok crowd is uniquely deranged however. The Palestine nonsense woke a lot of us up to TikTok brain

You cannot expect a foreign adversary to comply with laws designed for domestic corporations. For example, Facebook cooperated with the DOJ to find the source of Russia's 2016 disinformation campaign. Not only will China not allow similar cooperation from TikTok, they would also pressure TikTok to comply with their own demands.

This shutdown is performative, by the way. The law prohibits the distribution, maintenance, or updating of the application. There's no reason to disable the app for users who already have it installed except to generate outrage.

No one reads the actual law, everyone is taking the bait.

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

I'm not a lawyer but if "maintenance" is interpreted broadly, it might include any operation or service that keeps the app running, which could mean they cannot serve content even if they never updated the app again.

Serving content could be seen as an ongoing maintenance activity.

The bill also prohibits the provision of "internet hosting services" for the app. Serving content over the internet could be considered providing hosting services, which would be prohibited unless there's a divestiture.

Just putting it out there.

Maybe, but it’s back now. It was performative.

It would be nice if such a ban meant that a small competitor could get a jumpstart. Instead I fear the result is that Meta just gets bigger.

Just have Devin or some coding AI agents to clone TikTok /s

I hear this all the time without the /s

As if merely writing the code is the only prerequisite for making a hundred billion dollar business

I'm very surprised no one took on this window of opportunity (as far as I can tell). Any new TikTok-like hip app that is not from any FAANG has a good chance of taking off

There’s proof from Federal agencies that they knew the algorithm was intentionally being weaponized to agitate and promote domestic protestors. Just look at the Chinese consulate shut down when 45 was in office last in Texas. It was rumored to be the base of operations for where the Chinese were weaponizing the algorithm against American interests.

we’ve seen this strategy of “intelligence agencies have proof, but they’re not releasing it” play out many times. i remember when the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign”.

i am not sure why this would give you any confidence that they have actual proof.

Imagine what else they are doing: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...

1. this is not a trustworthy independent think tank, read who is on the board

2. anyone with half a statistics brain can see the problems in this analysis

3. i’m a big boy, i can consume content even if it comes from a skewed platform

If it's for the mental health of the US citizens then banning TikTok alone is not going to address it. But may be the first step.

Historically the US has been always behind the curve when it comes to personal online privacy and security threats compared to Europe(and it's not like we are doing a good job at all, Europe is pretty shit as well), but here, today, I am utterly jealous of the US. Let's hope the EU commission gets their shit together and follows soon.

Outside the US all the American account contents are still up and visible. How does TikTok designate where an account is from? Can Americans not sign in and delete their content? Do VPNs work if American-created accounts log in? Interesting rollout here I wonder if this will change in the coming days.

App stores are region/country specific and the accounts are linked to that.

On Android you can have 5 of accounts in Google Play all from different regions to install region-locked apps. E.g bank apps.

I can access the site on desktop with a VPN through Canada, but it won't let me log in to any account that was created on the USA-hosted servers.

I created a new Canadian account and now I see a lot of Canadian memes that I don't get lol

On mobile the VPN doesn't work as it checks your app store country. I saw a few USA refugees on Canada TikTok saying they changed their Apple App Store country and it works just fine now. I think I'll sacrifice an Android device and do it that way.

I'll bet none of the people responding here actually read the Supreme Court decision.

This isn't about data that people agreed to allow ByteDance to scrape. It's about ByteDance going beyond that and scraping contact information of NON-TikTok users, which could be used for blackmail or in other illegal and adversarial ways.

Everyone knows U.S. companies gather user data. Oracle had been doing it for decades. This is not the issue and not at all why TikTok has been banned.

The difference is that ByteDance was blatantly going after data that was legally not within their rights to grab; NON-TikTok user data on TikTok user's devices.

In addition, there are hints in the decision that the FBI provided evidence that China was using this information for adversarial purposes.

The decision very clearly walks through the First Amendment issues in relation to foreign adversaries and explicitly states that this is a singular decision.

It would have been VERY EASY for ByteDance to stop scraping data or to find a U.S. partner to host the data of U.S. Citizens. I've worked at global consulting firms and Germany requires this. All German citizen data must be hosted in their country. This isn't anything new. Companies make these kinds of compromises all the time and have for decades. Some companies explicitly state their data has to be on-prem or not in AWS. As an enterprise architect, I make these kinds of design decisions all the time. (Scenario: If customer is located in XYZ country, where do we store their data?)

ByteDance simply refused because even though they claim they are not handing data over to the Chinese Intelligence Service, they ACT LIKE THEY ARE.

None of this will matter in a few months. There are active projects to build Instagram and TikTok clones on the atProto network (Bluesky) which will serve the same content without advertising and without an algorithm. There will be Feeds for cat videos, pirate dress up videos, and APT dance videos and I'm 100% sure all the users that join that service will completely forget about TikTok. And the moderation will be given to the users so they can decide what to see.

The supreme court also said you don't have a right to control your own body a few years ago. They have been political (and thus unreliable) for years.

No it didn't.

It said the conjured-up-out-of-nothing right in Roe v. Wade was not a valid argument that the federal government (through the Constitution) explicitly protects abortion.

Even legal scholars on the left admitted before the decision Roe v. Wade was a decision on very shaky ground and liable to be overturned.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/john-hart-ely-do...

So it was overturned, and the decision was the state's, not the federal government under current laws.

Nothing stops Congress from passing a national law on abortion. If they do, then the Supreme Court will recognize it.

I wouldn’t say it was shaky ground. Right to privacy is definitely a real thing. The SC has decided against precedent that it isn’t a real thing.

What is your rebuttal against the points made in the article by the legal scholar?

I wonder if part of the new move to ban social media sites is because it's more effective because there's less of an open web and presumably government agencies have gotten the hang of hindering emerging sites and social media they don't like.

Ie through state sanctioned ddos and bot swarms

If I hadn't long time ago lost touch with the idea that Internet is a new global, rebellious space that transcends all limited, conservative, slow-moving nations, and that I can offer or use a service running wherever from wherever else I might be sitting as long as it's all connected to the internet, I'd be heartbroken to see services being stopped or driven away from within the borders of a certain geological area. But that train left the station so long time ago that the rails have all rusted since.

I can only expect the bar to geopartition Internet services due to financial, political, and militarian whims to go lower and lower until eventually there's no global internet left.

In any case, I'm glad I could see the 90's.

Unreal. Land of Freedom bans Social Media app that runs on US servers, on its own terms, with censorship teams staffed by dozens of ex-US State officials[1].

Amazing that Congress will see bipartisan action on this issue before any of the other much more important issues.

It absolutely destroys criticisms of China banning Facebook, etc.

1. https://www.mintpressnews.com/tiktok-chinese-trojan-horse-ru...

Wasn't the concern of data being siphoned off to China? Even India has banned it. Where does freedom come into picture here?

Was it? What was the real concern? And can you prove it?

Thank you for collecting these.

I wouldn’t mind my data being siphoned off to China. It’s not even clear that if China had all of our data then it would meaningfully change world events.

Freedom means freedom from censorship. I can’t think of an equivalent event that’s happened in my lifetime in the US. "India did it too" isn’t exactly a strong rallying cry.

That said, we’ll live. Hopefully our blind trust that there were security concerns ends up being worth something.

Arguably China has won the day with the massive migration to RedNote.

> massive migration

You're in a bubble if you think there is a massive migration happening to an unlocalized app .

Not at all. There are hundreds of thousands of US users. Most of the content I see is localized and tailored for English. There’s even an auto translate feature. They’re very welcoming and nice, and encourage us to post. Most of them are just showing their houses and what it’s like to live in China.

It was a pleasant surprise. That said, I’m not too interested in endless house tours, so I’m going to see what kind of content there is when things settle down. That’s still a migration though, at least for me.

What is impressive to me as a software developer is that the RedNote engineering team added a Translate item to the system, at scale, within a matter of days. It works flawlessly.

It's meant as a joke of sorts, not a migration. From the NYT:

"Sure, there are the people calling themselves “TikTok refugees” and joining Xiaohongshu, a Chinese social media app, as a half-joking protest of the U.S. government’s decision to ban TikTok on national security grounds. (The joke part is: OK, Congress, you want to stop us from using a sketchy Chinese social media app? We’ll download an even sketchier Chinese social media app and use that instead.)"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/technology/what-if-no-one...

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/arts/tiktok-red-note-chin...

You have data?

This baffles me a lot as TikTok and RedNote have very distinct market niches except for their Chinese origin. I assume if someone were interested in a flavor of social media like RedNote they would have been on it already.

Is there a really strong market demand for whatever social platform as long as it's owned by a Chinese company?

What do you mean "even India" has banned it? India is notorious for its censorship and is rated near the bottom of the World Press Freedom Index. Being in that company is absolutely not something the US should aspire to.

That's not the point. It's in the interest of a country to not let it's data be sucked by a foreign government. And India took the bold but right decision early on.

I feel the same concerns for which US bans tiktok are valid for EU and fb/meta/x/twitter/google.

How do we know they're not siphoning our EU data to the US, or controlling what the algorithm shows us to influence politics?

I think the better framing is that ByteDance refused to comply with US regulations and spin off TikTok.

If the EU decided WhatsApp should be spun off from Meta (for any number of legitimate reasons) to continue operating there, we wouldn’t claim that the EU banned the app.

it's a trade war response to china's long history of walling non-chinese apps off from their billion-odd-user market while happily collecting users, data, and ad revenue from their own apps in other countries. if china removes all limitations on US tech platforms and ceases exploiting our open-by-default policy, we can talk lifting restrictions. until then, all chinese tech services should be banned.

basically china's entire tech industry was built on the back of creating an artificially constrained market where foreign competitors with superior products were not allowed to compete. that is, everything that wasn't built off outright theft of American tech. that could have been hundreds of billions of dollars of increased market cap and returns to the investing public, hundreds of billions that china effectively stole.

just banning isn't a good idea. Chinese companies should be forced to give technology transfers.

Now that was the entire point of this, remember? The offer was to sell to an American entity, or be banned. They didn’t want to sell, so here we are.

Somewhere I heard that there would have been much less drama around the TikTok ban if the US had framed it as tit-for-tat punishment for not allowing US social media platforms in China.

Going for a tit-for-tat with China on censorship is so hypocritical for the US it undermines its entire global persona.

What would be the offended principle that makes going tit-for-tat with China "hypocritical"?

I disagree with the hypocrisy argument. The US government tried to clamp down on Covid misinformation during a pandemic, with a declared emergency and there was pushback that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court [1].

The US does plenty of sketchy shit, but it has nothing on the surveillance state imposed by the CCP, nor is it empowered to suppress information in the same manner.

The CCP’s censorship is so heavy handed that others have tried to weaponize it, as discussed recently here:

Tokyo University Used "Tiananmen Square" Keyword to Block Chinese Admissions [2].

———

[1] - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca...

[2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42355586

I did a FIOA request on myself and got back data. I’m no one.

The US also spread COVID antivax information.

Nobody outside NATO buys the whole "Mr Justice F. Eagle" shtick anyway though. People inside the US have been raised on anti-China for hundreds of years (yellow journalism never died) and are ready to accept anything to stop the "bad guys" from winning.

Very few countries have any power to control external influence on a social media platform. They don't have much ability to create or distribute a local solution so they have to import one. So when you say those outside NATO don't buy the whole shtick, part of that is they don't have the luxury to do so. They almost have to import such things or just not have them.

People don't buy the shtick because they've been getting their resources stolen, their people bombed, and their governments couped over and over and over again, not because they don't have their own home-grown social media (pretty much everywhere does, it's just not as popular and doesn't make as much money). Pretty hard to believe in the pure heart and good intentions of Uncle Sam by looking at his behavior during the Cold War era or the unipolar moment (ie. within living memory).

I think it's actually harder to believe in bad intentions of people than good intentions. The former makes me miserable, the latter makes me grateful.

So yes, the US government has done a lot that has hurt other people, it has also done a lot that has helped other people. I think we choose whether we want to believe people care about us or don't. I choose to believe they do.

Hundreds of years! A feat for a nation only 250 years old. Particularly considering the panic about Chinese immigration - the first real anti-China event in US history - dates to the latter half of the 1800s.

Also, the “yellow” in “yellow journalism” != the slur “yellow” as in “yellow peril.”

And finally, your conclusion - “[Americans] are ready to accept anything to stop the ‘bad guys’” - would still be a parochial ignorance, as well as ironically biased, even were it not so shakily premised.

not really true, the china bad all-out propagandizing is actually pretty recent

Is there actually a ban on US social media platforms in China?

Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others were operating in China, but when China imposed more and more censorship requirements on all social media platforms in China regardless of whether or not they were domestic or foreign and required all of them to turn over user details to the government many chose not to comply, and then China blocked them.

If a US social media platform were willing to implement China's censorship and disclosure requirements for its Chinese operations would they be able to go back? As far as I know we don't know because none of them have tried.

Note that TikTok as we know it is itself not available in China. The original app that became TikTok is in China, but when they wanted to expand to the rest of the world they split it into two companies and the apps diverged. Both companies are owned by ByteDance.

That's probably the approach a US social media company would need to take to try to get back into China.

China does not police foreign companies and domestic companies equally - it significantly puts its thumb on the scales to favor domestic competitors.

LinkedIn tried really hard to stay in, it simply is not sustainable.

In a way you have to hand it to China for this master play. Globalization really complicates economies. China became the world’s factory because it produced products for a fraction of the cost, but it didn’t let the West in to provide services and products built by white collar workers into their economy. It copied and made sure that the services and products were produced by Chinese budding middle class workers. Now you can argue they’re on even footing with the West. I agree with you. They caught up and the handicap should be removed. They want their cake and to eat it too.

in no way are they on an even footing with the US, their wealth is more similar to Mexico.

there is a US-sized subset of China that is close to an even footing with the US, yes

This is almost certainly true. What I find most offensive is the total unwillingness of elected politicians of both parties to admit that protectionism is the real reason for the ban. Our politicians believe we are stupid.

China also bans TikTok. That should tell you everything you need to know about whether they believe it is a positive influence.

China also has a firewall, are we going to do that too? I guess that is one day to become communist, just copy them tit for tat...

Let’s say you and I are adversaries. Or maybe just competitors. I invite you for a meal. But I won’t eat the meal myself. I only want you to eat it.

Do you think that’s going to be good for you?

Basically how I feel as a European with the US sitting on the other side of the table.

What does the US offer Europe that they don’t use themselves?

WhatsApp :)

(Kidding aside, your point is very valid)

Would you prefer Russia?

Why is the only solution to continue the competition rather than engage in mutual cooperation?

> It absolutely destroys criticisms of China banning Facebook, etc.

What is that criticisms about? US and EU should ban that too.

> It absolutely destroys criticisms of China banning Facebook, etc.

You mean around 10-20% of the open internet? [1][2] That is what you graciously summarize as "Facebook, etc."?

No, it does not destroy criticisms of that. China is #172 out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index [3]. It was #179 two years ago. Just because the US "bans" [sic!] one app (that, by the way, is also blocked in China [4]), that does not make them equal.

To give you an idea of how bad it is: I went through the Pudong Airport two years ago. I had to scan my passport and my face to connect to the WiFi. After I did, I couldn't call my mother, because literally every communication channel I could think of was blocked. I couldn't even connect to a VPN. I might as well have been on a mountain in the middle of nothing.

[1] https://en.greatfire.org/analyzer

[2] https://cyber.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

[3] https://rsf.org/en/index

[4] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/tech/tiktok-douyin-byteda...

A quick note: the US is falling down the WPFI fairly quickly lately...

Time for the EU to ban Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, due to foreign interference.

It’s funny watching this TikTok ban unfold. Trump went hell on Earth against TikTok before he lost to Biden. Biden got what he wanted done, but now Trump is back and seems to have a special "warm" spot for TikTok.

Every politician flip-flops, but Trump is something else.

People want politicians to say they will do something something, but have nothing ever change. And then they punish politicians who change anything at all.

Things censored from the article:

Shirtless pics

LGBTQ posts

My Hero Academia

The funny thing is, I saw videos from Chinese users that specifically mentioned not to post these things. I had to look up why the anime, and apparently the creator made choices that directly poked at old WW2 tensions between Japan and China.

TikTok just disappeared from the US Google Play Store

Good. China bans almost anything and everything. Why should we feed data to them freely.

> In the meantime, alternative Chinese-owned apps like RedNote and Lemon8 have received a boost as TikTok users search for alternatives.

Why does it seem that there's no non-Chinese alternative to TikTok popular enough to warrant any mention?

My (limited) understanding of this law is that it works by barring US companies from doing business with ByteDance, primarily hitting App Store providers and cloud service providers.

There’s a world in which they could have migrated services to an off-shore cloud and continued to serve the existing users who already had the app installed (with the disadvantage that they would be unable to evolve the app itself, since no updates). It would have bought them time to figure out a long-term, legal fix.

…But instead they chose to just block all users with US-based accounts.

Someone made the calculation that failing the app loudly for US users was the better strategy.

I don't remember ever seeing an article at the top of HN for 12 hours straight, and I'm on here an unhealthy amount. While it is a major event, it's definitely not the biggest we've seen, even in tech.

I feel like a lot of these comments not understanding the sentiment are not looking at this in the context of what is going on in the US. The other alternatives people are suggesting are openly manipulating public opinion and stifling speech to serve their own interests at the detriment of the rest of US public.

Books are being banned, the defunding of the department of education is an explicit goal at the incoming administration.

The fact that Americans may or may not be incredibly susceptible to propaganda is a direct consequence of national public policy over the last few generations at least, and it's going to get much worse

I can't see this for anything other than massive act of petulance. Sure TikTok are probably spying and influencing Americans, but I'm darned sure Meta, Google etc. are doing the same for similar non altruistic purposes.

In the current geopolitical climate, just how far might we go in barring Chinese H‑1B visa holders from industries we label “critical to national security”—sectors such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence? Could such fear and suspicion escalate to the point of mass internment, echoing the shameful precedent of forcibly confining Japanese Americans during World War II? Most importantly, which legal safeguards, democratic institutions, and moral principles exist to ensure that such extreme xenophobic measures remain firmly off the table?

Good I hope this opens the way for the ban of american apps all over the world.

Sale or ban of all US companies in every country. Imagine u could own the branding, technology, IP, revenue and profits of US companies. Country can use that to massive benefit their citizens, end poverty, hunger, bring free healthcare and education, balance currency and trade, increase tax revenues. All US companies can be Indian, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, all nations in Africa, Middle east companies.

was not really on TikTok but a bleak day for anyone that believes in the free speech ideals the US was founded on

Aww yes I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote about the need to form a more perfect union that allows hostile foreign governments to run a direct unfettered pipeline into the minds of its youth with zero oversight.

Luckily we get the unfettered propaganda pipeline of hostile american billionaires instead.

American billionares are surely much worse than totalitarian state running internment camps.

American billionaires have a much more direct impact on my life than totalitarian states halfway across the globe.

Also, not to defend the CCP, but America has more prisoners than any other country, China included, and dramatically more per capita.

America is also an incredibly diverse and rich country.

There's a huge difference between internment camps designed to oppress and reeducate Uighur Muslims, and regular prisons. These are not the same thing at all.

Being real, I don't think there's as big a difference as you think. Read "The New Jim Crow", or look at anything BLM was mad about, policing in the US is extremely racialized.

I don't disagree that there's a big problem with the way Black people are treated by police and the criminal justice system in the US. In fact I think the prison system we currently have is pretty terrible and I want to see it reformed, having had three close (white) family members who've been in prison/jailed. I'm just pointing out that there's a big difference between a justice system that's systemically biased against a certain race, and a system that's explicitly put in place to target a certain race.

What is the narrative that is feared? What thought crime are we preventing?

US law and freedom of speech is for US citizens. China is a foreign adversary. China bans Facebook. Same shit.

China publicly advertises itself as communist regime. I get that we want to protect our interests from foreign adversaries, I disagree that this is the way to do so.

China banning Facebook is an authoritarian action. If we are doing the “same shit”, it feels expressly undemocratic and I am speaking towards that.

Completely different. At least China's rules are technical and can be achieved. Bing, iCloud, AWS, Microsoft office, exchange, Azure are all in China. Of course, whether you want to comply the rules is up to you, but it is doable. Facebook can be in China if they adhere to rules, there were rumors they were going to offer a Chinese version of Facebook but stopped because of backlash, but the point is rule are technical and are doable.

Facebook and Google are still making tens of billions from Chinese advertisers selling stuff on their platform. And China never forced Facebook or Google to sell themselves to Chinese owners, so completely give up control on branding, IP, code, data and all assets etc etc.

US is not even giving you any technical rules to comply with. Tiktok's approach to US is replicate China's rules for foreign internet companies in China. All content moderation done by US employees, US employee work on code and data. Data stored in US based servers. But US companies operating in China, like iCloud, AWS and Azure, US employees can still get access to Chinese data for daily engineering operations, like debugging. Tiktok also offered US government appoint security and natsc officials on Tiktok senior leadership, overseeing all code and data practices. US government have kill switch to shutdown Tiktok if they find anything. Tiktok is perfectly fine with US government implementing the censorship to censor whatever US government doesn't like. These details are equal to China's practices.

But US is not allowing that, it just sell yourself 100% to US owner or get banned. And ban is much more draconian than Chinese ban. Chinese citizens can visit FB using VPN, and companies can transact with FB and Google, hence billions of advertising dollars for these companies. US ban targets all transaction with Bytedance, hence Google, Apple and Oracle are completely geofencing US users that even US user using VPN can't access Bytedance services. And Chinese regulations target specific type of products, Meta's FB main app may not be in China, but FB advertising is. US ban targets Bytedance, the entire company. Capcut, a video editing app is also banned in the US. What data does a video editing app collect? How does a video editing app affect public discourse and opinions? How is Capcut a national security threat? What evidence is there?

US is not offering you a chance to comply, it is offering you a knife to kill yourself, and say here, you got options, why don't u kill yourself. Anyone who think it is not an insult is just, I have no words for you. China gives foreign companies room to live, so your workers have jobs and income, your inventor keep their inventions and private assets. US gives the foreign company two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. Your workers are out of jobs, what was a comfortable livelihood gone, your inventor's invention is destroyed, you will not get what your invention is worth, your private assets are gone. Or we can take your invention away from you and you lose all control of your baby in the future. If you don't see the difference, I have no word for you.

By "adhering to the rules" you mean censoring. US companies are censored in China or they don't get to be there.

Is the US allowed to censor Chinese companies in the US? To Chinese companies get to benefit from freedom of speech in the US but US companies don't get to benefit from freedom of speech in China?

Can't have it only one way buster.

The US has banned foreign leadership of tv and newspapers since the 30s. At no point had the US ever really allowed foreign governments unfettered control over our media.

A huge shame it'll be undone in 24 hours. Shouting out Trump by name in the ban message is hilarious, they are really doing their best to tie his hands.

It's extra bizarre, because Trump is the one that made the initial move towards banning TikTok during his first term.

That was before Jeff Yass gave him a bunch of money.

Not bizarre at all. Trump doesn’t need to ever acknowledge that he’s the one who made that initial move. Just take credit for saving it now.

Maybe if he’s feeling himself he’ll say it was a 4D chess move to make Biden look like a bozo by being the one to ban it just for him to swoop in and undo the ban in 48 hours.

It’s impossible to gotcha a guy who pretends the past never happened — or who insists that his imagination of the past is accurate.

Exactly. That and trying to bury the lede about the Biden Administration's role in the Gaza ceasefire would send a signal to a huge chunk of voters alienated from the Democratic Party that the Republicans care about them. I'm afraid (though unsure how realistic my fear is) that a enough GenZ and anti-Gaza voters will flip to Trump if Trump keeps TikTok going that the Democrats won't be able to win in the midterms.

A lot of the anti-TikTok sentiment seems to revolve around the mores of college-educated, upper-middle-class white GenX and Millenial mores, which the Republicans have gleefully used as punching bags.

> I'm afraid (though unsure how realistic my fear is) that a enough GenZ and anti-Gaza voters will flip to Trump if Trump keeps TikTok going that the Democrats won't be able to win in the midterms.

There are about 10 million news cycles between now and the midterms, highly unlikely anyone will remember any of this by then.

Gen Z voters are also young, and young people never vote.

Democrats getting trounced by Trump/Republican Party is one of the most embarrassing things to ever happen to the Democratic Party and that is saying something.

If they lose (again) it won’t be because of TikTok. No place left to look but in the mirror.

My brain is trying to understand the loop going on here.

* Republicans ban TikTok

* For whatever reason ban doesn't go through (was it via executive order)

* Dems pickup where republicans left off and ban TikTok

* Republicans undo ban

Why.....

Especially since it was the same republicans in both cases

Not too hard to understand. He sensed he had leverage based on national security concerns to dangle a sword above their heads. One of their investors donated a bunch of money to help get him re-elected, so now he will reverse his earlier position based on some other pretext. It’s all theater.

the republican platform is just "not democrat" and plays to people who need an identity

> * Dems pickup where republicans left off and ban TikTok

So why didn't Biden stop the ban? Instead he signed it and did not intervene. The problem is Biden continued and did not stop it they left Trump to reverse the ban.

It would have been better for the clean up his own mess but again they allowed Trump to "save them" and Biden would have just left TikTok for dead.

Not really in favor either way but isn't that a bipartisan win? For a bill to be started by one president and completed by another?

He lives to take credit for moments like this. One can only wonder what his actions will be conditional on, but it’s a virtual certainty that it will need to benefit him personally.

It did benefit him personally.

He said so himself. "Trump told the court that TikTok was an important platform for his presidential campaign and that he should be the one to make the call on whether TikTok should remain in the US—not the Supreme Court.":

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/trump-told-scotu...

The largest ever constituency in the USA, has now been banned and eliminated. There has been no disclosure of factual evidence for doing this. The reason given for doing this is vague and goes in the face of almost? all? legal precident regarding property and free speach. Every single person under the age of 40, was on TicTok, and in there own way, every single one of them is going to put on a tight little smile and say "ok, then" I wonder if they are going to crash the app stores?

Time for the kids to pick up a book.

Did they ever show the proof of spying to the American public?

I'm the one who is spying to thr American public

And I have just observed that you have been downvoted

Your social credit score just got upgrade! You may now use high speed trains!

Would it be within the realm of possibility that US intelligence agencies have this proof and have not released it publicly?

Here in Victoria, Australia the state government has deplatformed itself from TT and banned the app from government phones due to security concerns.

Clearly, the state government has taken instruction from the federal government who has received advice from somewhere (5 eyes / intelligence agencies) about the risks.

>Would it be within the realm of possibility that US intelligence agencies have this proof and have not released it publicly?

I wonder where we've heard this before?

I wish we would ban social media for at least 2 days per week, these apps are extremely distracting and will be seen like gambling addiction in the future.

Where's the line? Does hn count?

Where's the line? Does hn count?

It does to a degree but HN by design encourages people to set limits in their profile options with maxvisit, minaway, noprocrast. Self govern rather than govern from above.

I would say social media should be required to put in 15 minute breaks every hour by default and maybe you can switch it off. That would be a reasonable compromise.

this will have immediate and devastating effects on the economy and culture and the usa especially the incoming administration is not prepared to handle

The first amendment only applies to the oligarchs and their friends in the 3 branches of the United States. TikTok is only the first to be blocked, there will be more, and they will be DC political fodder too.

We need a distributed social platform. Distributed currency system. Distributed personal information privacy. Distributed AI. Where’s the tech YC?

>Where’s the tech YC?

Following the money. TYC did things like bitcoin.

TYC gives zero shits about information privacy and distributed AI because they can't make more money than god. TYC isn't going to save you here. Nor are the masses going to adopt it.

The blue sky app is open source, it shouldn't be too hard to fork it and add a short video tab.

I want open source everything.

Open Source social media.

If you and 5000 like minded people don't like Blue sky you can effectively spin up your own server and exclude others.

Open Source games. I want a billionaire to fund an open source fornite with the same idea.

Which reminds me, Tencent owns major stakes in (100%) Riot and Epic Games ( 40%). Are they next ?

I'd like to discuss the pop-up's content. If it comes out to be that one guy, President Trump, CAN pass an executive order that effectively ignores a law that Congress passed AND the Supreme court upheld unanimously, it's a very dangerous precedent.

He can direct the justice department not to enforce a law.

Do you think he should? Do you think it's a healthy exercise in the country's checks and balances for the president to create a precedent where he directs the justice department to not enforce a law when Congress has drafted it, and the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld it? Last time anything like this has happened, it created devastating national history.

I don't think the country fell apart when Obama directed the justice department not to enforce weed laws. [0]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum

I don't think this compares, but I do see where you're coming from. Whereas the present SC has unanimously upheld this TikTok law, The Court has avoided taking a position on federal non-enforcement of marijuana laws in states where it is legalized

It wouldn’t be the first time an American President decided not to enforce a SC ruling.

Read the last few words in my GP, I know. Also, a law drafted by Congress AND an SC ruling upholding it??

I think actually it would be (if you are thinking of the Jackson one it’s not actually the way it’s popularly remembered)

How do you think Worcester v. Georgia happened in ways not popularly remembered?

How? The bill gives the president a power. SCOTUS has said the law is legal. Nothing compels the president to use the power. See Biden passing it along.

I'll take the bait. What was that last time and what was the devastating national history moment?

I mean the same exact criteria happened in Marbury v Madison and it changed the entire nation's check and balance system, lol. Many will claim for better, but the opportunity is definitely there for worse.

Not enforcing laws by executive decision happens all the time. Whenever police "crack down" on something, that means they were previously letting stuff slide.

The law gives a new power. Doesn't say it has to be used. President can also nuke shit. Doesn't have to be used.

Which would put Google and Apple in a precarious position of ignoring a law because it's not being enforced right now.

Congress themselves wrote in the president's authority to do this. Although it is unclear if doing it this late would fall within the law.

Your second sentence is paramount, it wasn't written for this far out.

It's definitely an edge case, but courts are not absolutely mechanical and given the context I think it can be argued either way (IANAL). Especially when the outgoing president just told his DoJ not to enforce the ban and leave it to the next guy. At any rate the delay only gives a stay of execution.

I think we're beyond creating dangerous precedent at this point. He'll do what he wants and no one can stop him.

Between the Unitary Executive decision with "official acts" in July, and being able to claim democratic immunity by winning the Popular and Electoral vote - I'm trying to grasp whatever straws we have left. If this one is broken, we don't even have the "2 > 1" checks and balances between the 3 branches of government that's taught in every Govt 101 class, so it's good to spell this predicament out for people.

The law gives the President unambiguous authority to grant an extension to the timeline.

He has to certify 3 things to invoke that extension which he is unable to certify.

True, but that's a low hurdle for the new guy. More generally, its worth pointing out that the law as passed explicitly names TikTok/ByteDance, but locates a lot of authority with the president to determine 'adversary' and 'controlled' in potential future applications of the law.

Apparently the law has an explicit clause that allows the executive branch to give a 90 day extension if they feel progress is being made towards divestment.

After deadline, though? Even textualists will be hard-pressed to say the enshrined 90-day extension can be exercised after enforcement is actuated - whether by date or action.

Bold of you to assume that rule of law still exists in this country.

Oh it does, try your luck as a layman to prove otherwise. It just doesn't at the top, anymore. And it's brazen.

Even their blatant appeal to his ego is already dangerous. But will be par for the course for the next four years.

It'll be interesting to see how much the other social media platforms work to replicate the TikTok model if this ban ends up being permanent.

Maritime powers want to control choke points, flow of goods, flow of information, flow of gas and natural resources.

In this particular case I don't care. But it fits in with the Nordstream sabotage, the attempts to control Arctic sea routes via Greenland, the attempted control of the Panama canal and the attempts in the Caspian sea region via Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine.

Very interesting to see how effective US propaganda can be

Going by the comments, it seems a lot of people here actually believe this whole thing is about “China”

“China” is the new “communism”. It’s just the phantom enemy to scare everyone

Without a real disclosure about the real reasons for the TT ban, we will never really know what is going on behind the scenes

Maybe we’ll have to wait a few decades to get some unclassified docs

When the CCP asked Google to censor search results, that was a bad thing.

When the US government asks China to censor TikTok, that's a good thing.

Make it make sense.

First, the United States government isn't asking China to censor TikTok.

Second, the two proposed situations are entirely different. The former is censoring particular results, the latter is a content-neutral ban with the ability for ByteDance to continue operating with no change to content.

Third, perhaps this is controversial, but many people don't want a foreign adversary to have the ability to manipulate public perception. If you are the United States, allowing an enemy to have the ability to manipulate massive amounts of your population is extremely dangerous.

I don't even know that I support the ban, but I certainly know that most of these sorts of comparisons simply don't make sense and are either missing or ignoring vital pieces of the puzzle.

Completely different, it is not a content ban but a sanction against entire company Bytedance. Capcut was also removed, how is the video editing app influence public perception and steal US data?

China gave foreign internet applications a list of rules to comply. And these are doable rules, u may not want to do them, but they are doable. That is why Bing, iCloud, AWS, Microsoft office, Azure, Tesla's cars, some of hosts critical and sensitive Chinese data are operating fine in China, even used by governments and state-owned companies.

And Google and Meta are currently earning 10s of billions of dollars from Chinese advertisers. And google and Meta can offer any other services to China that is not regulated by online community services.

Chinese citizens can visit Google and Meta apps using VPN, Google and Meta can transact with Chinese companies. Chinese rules just target online community-based services with a list of doable rules.

Tiktok's original wish is to replicate China's rules for foreign online services in China in the US. So have US citizens do the data and code, implement whatever censorship regime US government wants, store US data on US servers. Allow US government official inside the company to review and oversee code, algorithm and data practices. Allow US government kill switch to turn off the app if they see anything. This is reciprocity of rules.

But US is not giving any technical, doable options for you to adhere to. It is giving two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. China gives foreign companies room to live, so your workers have jobs and income, your inventor keep their inventions and private assets. US gives the foreign company two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. Your workers are out of jobs, what was a comfortable livelihood gone, your inventor's invention is destroyed, you will not get what your invention is worth, your private assets are gone. Or we can take your invention away from you and you lose all control of your baby in the future. If you don't see the difference, I have no word for you.

China doesn't kill your companies. Take away the invention from the inventor, take away assets, IP, technology, branding from the inventor, forcing the inventor the giveaway the baby they invented and worked so hard on. China just don't want you say certain things within its borders, but everyone can live, have a job, get paid, bring food to the table. US just want to end your company, make everyone jobless, and you can't say what you want to say anyway because everything is gone.

Thank you for your detailed response. This is what I suspected.

i'm conflicted. i don't want chinese controlled propaganda but i don't want us controlled propaganda either. but i suspect that the "safety"/propaganda arguments are window dressing and it's really economic protectionism, which at least i understand. but from a free-enterpise perspective, banning a legally operating company simply because of it's ownership seems worrisome, and it would seem a toothless unenforceable thing in the long run (e.g. sell TikTok to its own "independent" company on paper and keep pulling the strings).

the realization is that this is a binary choice, either we ban it or we don't. but we shouldn't be in this position in the first place. neither choice is the right answer. i don't want any of the outcomes. i don't want a chinese facebook. i don't want a us controlled facebook. i don't want a facebook controlled facebook.

you want to know how to keep giant governments out of your shit (us and china and russia, etc.)? how to keep giant corporations out of your knickers? if you favor economic protectionism, how to keep other countries from undermining your industries? how to keep giant corporations (us or chinese) from exploiting their monopolies to wreck our culture just so they can serve more advertisements?

everyone on this forum, especially if you decry this ban, needs to stop defending, accepting, and allowing closed monopolistic computing and networking. app-store monopolies, for instance, secure-boot, device-non-ownership. we've given these companies persistent 100% control over our own devices and we (as surprised as you are) got monopolies. now we have to argue about which flavor of monopoly we want.

the minute, via app store policy or via crypto/secure boot, you allow a company to select what i am or am not allowed to do, see, or buy on my own devices - this is what we are doomed to deal with as a result.

The United States has become a parody of itself.

Six years ago, The Onion mocked the idea of TikTok being dangerous to the US as a paranoid fantasy.[0] Now, that position is bipartisan consensus. China hysteria appears to have no limits.

0. https://theonion.com/xi-whiz-1844838344/

To think China is not an adversary to the West is simply foolish. Either via blatant cyberattacks, corporate espionage or nefarious trade moves, China is not a friend.

I don't even know what you mean by "adversary to the West."

China is a major country that has its own interests, which sometimes align with and sometimes are at odds with those of the US, EU countries, and other countries that belong to "the West."

The type of simplistic friend/enemy thinking that you're engaging in will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As China hysteria continues to skyrocket to previously unforseeable levels in the US, the US will take ever more extreme measures, the relationship between the US and China will get worse and worse, and the two will eventually come into real conflict.

The only way to avert that fate is to counter simplistic "China is the enemy" thinking.

It’s amazing that you have a lot of ideas to defend China but completely clueless how China is an adversary to most of the west. This is the same thinking that Europe fell for with regards to Russia. You don’t happen to reside in Europe so you?

There is no simplistic friend/enemy, notice how you are using those words not me. Countries of all level of diplomacy play games. Geopolitics are shades of gray and it would be blind to say China has not over the past 10 years gotten bolder in state sponsored cyberattacks, flying satellites/balloons over the US, market flooding, taking HK early, state sponsored corporate espionage.

Please stop using your simple mental models. Nobody is getting in a conflict as of yet and it’s in nobody’s economic interest. China still thinks very much in terms of economics but on the long horizon. You think in such a binary way with this strange idea that anyone is getting into a military conflict.

> China is not a friend.

> There is no simplistic friend/enemy, notice how you are using those words not me.

Make up your mind.

> over the past 10 years gotten bolder in state sponsored cyberattacks, flying satellites/balloons over the US, market flooding, taking HK early, state sponsored corporate espionage.

You say this all as if the US were not doing much the same in reverse. The NSA has a yearly budget in the tens of billions of dollars, and part of its mission is offensive cyber operations. The US has dozens of satellites overflying China at any given moment (I don't even know if the Chinese balloon was intentional - in the end, it actually seemed as if China had simply lost control of the balloon). The US has military bases all over China's periphery, which pose a serious military threat to mainland China. The US has imposed broad sanctions intended to cripple China's entire high-tech sector, which is a fundamental attack on China's goal of becoming an economically developed country with a high standard of living.

By any objective assessment, the US is much more aggressive in its attitude towards China than vice versa. The type of thinking you're engaging in, which paints China as an enemy with which mutually beneficial relations are impossible, will lead to ever more antagonism and eventual conflict, if not curtailed.

Isnt taking the app down today just for show? It seems like the ban wasnt going to be enforced? https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-trump-executive-order-...

TikTok and/or Apple and/or Google probably took the app down themselves. They talk to their lawyers, and tell them "no, Trump/Biden said they weren't going to enforce the law" and their legal counsel goes "no, no, no, you can't go by that, obey the law or you are opening yourself up to huge liability" and that's it.

Specifically the statue of limitations is 5 years. Even if Biden and Trump both decided not to enforce the law, the next president could still go after app stores for hosting it, and impose all fines.

Isn’t there a saying along the lines of “land of the free”? Except not free to choose which app you use. lol

Who’s in charge of thought control now?

The game Marvel Snap is also offline in the US due to being part of the Bytedance game publisher arm.

i’m not normally a conspiracy theorist but i had in mind what trump announced earlier today. he’s going to parlay this into a way to being the millennial/gen z savior and it will work with great success. my gen z kids are already compromising their progressive values and throwing themselves at the feet of their lord and savior donald trump.

TikTok is doing the same, their goodbye message literally name checks Trump as a potential saviour. A wise attempt at flattering his ego.

Not a bad thing to learn some conservative/libertarian values too. Going by the spying argument, every US social media company should be banned elsewhere because all data is siphoned by US gov.

>Going by the spying argument, every US social media company should be banned elsewhere because all data is siphoned by US gov.

Yes. All big social media should be banned for just this reason, we already had Cambridge Analytica to know this. Banning TT for spying is just a good first step.

With this said, the US.g has had the power to ban business with entities for a long ass time and those laws are pretty well established, especially in the case with foreign entities.

It appears to be back online as of 8:30AM PT. I saw it down an hour ago or so, but seems to be operating as usual again now.

That was quicker than I had expected, though I thought they'd probably find a way to avert even a temporary shutdown to begin with.

American youth was too crirical of Israel and too supportive of Luigi Mangione. Youth needed to be punished and also pushed into american platforms where the algorithm can suppress certain type of content that the ruling class does not approve.

I don't have the app, but from what I can tell, using a VPN doesn't help either. I guess when you downloaded it from the U.S. Android/Apple app stores, it flags you somehow, so a VPN can't help?

Dunno, I'm wayyyy out of the loop on all of this.

If that's the case, you could download it from a non-US app store and it should just work...unless TikTok is doing some denial based on from IP address, then you need foreign TikTok + VPN (or at least a way to mask your IP address being American in origin). At least the USA doesn't have a great firewall (yet?), so they aren't going to block it that way (or maybe they can buy the tech from Huawei, which they adapted from Cisco in the first place).

On mobile the VPN doesn't help. Have to change app store.

On desktop VPN works but you need to create a new account if yours was originally created on the USA servers.

Has anyone seen any evidence of ISPs/internet providers taking action to block TikTok?

So today's tiktok users would be like this...https://youtube.com/shorts/EOJkm9s5dSE?si=aCoDGv4mNhkImc5e

So I used a VPN to go to a different country and... I still get the "Tiktok banned" message, which is a little surprisingly honestly. I guess Tiktok have done this on an account basis rather than strictly GeoIP.

The "learn more" link tells you that you can still download your data. I'm not sure how. Website maybe? Because the app only has "learn more" and "close app" as options. Interestingly the fyp still loads and you see a video in the background.

I do think it'll come back this week but it's not clear what the legal mechanism is. Since the ban has gone into effect the extension in the law doesn't seem to apply anymore. This would then seem to require Congressional action and there doesn't seem to be much appetite for that but maybe that's because Republicans in Congress want to give credit for saving Tiktok to Trump when he becomes president on Monday.

Another option being talked about is nonenforcement by the Department of Justice. Some dismiss this by saying "the DoJ can change their mind" but that's not strictly true. Defendants in a case can rely on statements by prosecutors. It's a valid defense. If the Attorney-General makes an official statement saying "we will not prosecute Amazon or Google or Tiktok for 90 days (or whatever) while we work this out", that's absolutely a legal defense should the DoJ ever change their mind.

Basically, this is now a shakedown as some Trump allies will seek forcibly buy Tiktok or at least a large stake in it as a price for its continued operation in the US. It's unclear if Tiktok will acquiesce to this.

Remember though, Bytedance has significant US investors so there are conflicting forces at play here.

Might just be your device lang and timezone too.

I did change my Region to another and using a VPN and still get it but yeah, I suspect they're looking at something extra from the device.

Is this a big surprise? The law banning it was rooted in national security, presumably because of location tracking. Them knowing where users are was kind of the problem…

Of course anyone who wanted to, including the Chinese, could just buy that exact data from data brokers in the US. It's readily available.[0] Nobody really believes this was about data.

[0] - https://www.404media.co/candy-crush-tinder-myfitnesspal-see-...

Signing up for a new non-US account works fine.

As soon as I try to login to my US account it bricks the app.

YMMV.

No. Canada exists.

Usually the device language is reported with the country attached, should be en_CA or fr_CA.

The website works for me behind a VPN. It’s likely they are using the device’s actual location with the app.

I think they go by your SIM information or at least that's how they've done it for other regions. Try turning off your eSIM or taking your SIM card out.

VPN works on desktop if you open a new account.

I found another USA refugee on Canadian TikTok who said he just got Apple to change his app store country and it worked after he redownloaded it.

People are already sideloading it: https://x.com/Signulous/status/1880863785549988037

Google NotebookLM Audio Deep Dive on this HN thread: https://jumpshare.com/v/OFPXiOv9KR8pCtSmWlg2

US is the same country that allows a practical monopoly of NVIDIA on GPUs and Intel on CPU (or at least an oligopoly), and then pretend "foreigners are out to get us". It gets one to know one.

Dominant market leaders aren't inherently bad for the world. That's why anti-trust laws are narrow. Only when they are so ingrained and conspire to be anti-competitive (usually via lobbying gov policy to create barriers to entry) that they harm the ability for competition to replace them. NVIDIA constantly and perpetually have companies at their throats looking to take their market, which means they better deliver to customers.

This is a US policy for US citizens. Of course they are protecting their own. China does the same. No Facebook or Google allowed in China.

On the other hand, I find this a bit concerning too? The USA is starting to look a bit more like China. There is now only “one world view” for us. Given the friend group between the people who run X and Meta and it might leave us in a precarious situation?

Banning TikTok only treats the symptom , the real disease is that people are way to susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.

Did you miss the part where China is a foreign adversary? They don't play nice. If you try to play nice with someone who wants to kill you then you get killed.

We have nukes. If they try to kill us, everyone dies. "Foreign adversary" just means they're big enough to get a seat at the table in a multipolar world.

But I’m not saying China are nice guys, I’m saying we’re now left with the same thing, just ran by the US government. You might think that’s a good thing. I don’t.

Personally I think all closed source social media should be outlawed and all algorithms used should be audited by a third party.

End users just won't care about the algorithm. Try talking to a niece or nephew, especially one who makes money on the platform about The Algorithm and you'll get blank stares, or, at best, a "yeah I know, but...".

If you've had better luck, let me know (actually).

As for "being China", every country has protections on what goes in or out of the country including media. A lot of countries won't let you own a newspaper or news broadcast channel, so this is the next extension of that sort of idea.

It's the same idea as not allowing a company from the USSR to run a news channel during the Cold War, although obviously the lines are fuzzier and still being discovered with apps and algorithms.

China is a totalitarian dictatorship. The US is the land of the free.

Not the land of absolute free speech. Try owning a newspaper or TV station as a non-US citizen

Does anyone know how divesting in this case would actually work?

Would Bytedance still own shares in the resulting US entity? Shares they could sell or get paid with via dividends, just no control over operations?

I’m just waiting for Truth Social to be identified as a potential buyer.

There is literally no content being banned. All the talk about the U.S. trying to censor is nonsensical, as all the opinions by the members of the unanimous Supreme Court clearly pointed out, considering any of those opinions can be made in the hundreds or thousands of other social media avenues.

The entire situation hinges on TikTok’s ownership. They could sell themselves to any organization based outside China and have been given multiple opportunities to do so and they’ve refused.

That tells you all you need to know about the priorities of ByteDance, considering the U.S. was their biggest market since they’re banned in both China and India, the only other countries larger than the U.S.

Facebook is not being banned from China. China just asks that Facebook sell itself to a non-American company or they will be banned (but it's not a ban). Any of those opinions China is "suppressing" by not allowing Facebook can be shared offline in countless unmonitored avenues like back alleys and open fields far enough away from lip reading drones.

The US hegemony is dying and it is showing. The sign of a crumbling empire. Also, funny how any made up argument about national security goes before the first amendment.

This is a massive self own by the US estalishment. They are just damaging their own trust but not releasing the full and classified reasoning behind this.

Given all the very partisan flip-flopping on TikTok, I'm guessing there's not much to the "full and classified reasoning" and the real reason is more like "damn kids don't read my twitface posts, instead they call me names on a Chinese app, China CHina CHIHIANANANADASARtGHHGLE" and "My opponent has a lot of traction on TikTok, let's shut it down".

One way to think about social media is like a weapon. For the history of social media the US consumer was using a weapon that the US government had a way of exercising control over because Facebook, IG etc all existed as product of America. Tiktok was an outside challenger and threatened American power. Hence they took action to see it destroyed.

every state has the right to enforce whatever laws it prefers within its own borders. it would be nice if the united states allowed other states to be sovereign at home instead of constantly interfering in their political decisions. as a non-american citizen, i couldn't care less if the usa bans tiktok. i consider it a legitimate decision by their government, whether i like it or not.

This is not just special interests. It's also a Blueprint for future internet censorship in the US, so the government likes it too

Good riddance. It was nothing but brainrot, spyware and propoganda.

Though it's hardly unique in that regard. That's modern social media now.

Will be replaced by something else doing all of those things in a few months.

Don't forget that it also added to the massive loss of focus and learning abilities of young people. ChatGPT does the rest.

Good. Good riddance. Let’s do how long it lasts

There is no system of digital content distribution that can withstand the will of Government. The only thing that can be done is for the citizens of that government to wake up and take the power away from those that are wielding it to further enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. I am not a user of TikTok but this is not a good development for our "perfect union", nor the freedom of the internet in the United States of America.

I thought you were talking about China until the last sentence.

except for like i2psnark or something

It is absurd that users are not angry at TikTok for not protecting their data. Instead, TikTok weaponized the user base and made them belief that it is a free speech problem while they collected swaths of data and allowed it to leave US jurisdiction, into the hands of the Chinese government.

And Democrats just sucked at messaging. Its not a "TikTok ban". The message should have been about data protection.

And yes, it would be far better to pass something like the GDPR. But I guess, with the power of the US media companies, the TikTok law was a compromise.

tiktok data is in the US, Malaysia, and Singapore.

The US government claims otherwise. And even if data is not flowing to China directly, the threat is there from a legal point of view. Data is leaving US jurisdiction anyway. And China could force ByteDance to hand over data that is stored in Malaysia and Singapore.

so for data protection reasons, we only allow editorial discretion from US-domiciled companies?

yeah i fully reject this jingoistic reasoning

The law and also the SCOTUS ruling don't even touch editorial discretion. TikTok is free to do whatever as long user data is safe from being accessed by an adversary like the Chinese. Its TikTok who made it about editorial discretion and free speech. They failed with that argument. And I agree with that.

China should also unblock YouTube and Twitter/X, Facebook if US decided to reverse its decision on Tiktok.

If everyone started doing this ,we would have Google and Facebook in each country owned and operated individually

As far as Musk boldly stated his intention to interfere in european elections, can we ban Twitter/X on Europe as well? Asking for a friend.

Yes, you can also force sale or ban. And you should do that, because the US has shown it is legal and moral.

Nice move. Regulating competitors away while screaming about free markets. Not a meme country at all..

The U.S. is not really a free market. The textbooks used in high school have said that the U.S. is a "mixed economy" for many decades.

Sounds great to me. Now EU authorities should ban Xitter in the EU. Stop foreign election interference!

The coverage of TikTok's closure on this site is just sort of tabloid at this point. The culture of HN ceteris paribus hates social media significantly more than the average person. That and its western bias makes questions about the TikTok ban's effects on this site really silly. The folks here are probably some of the most opinionated, least impartial voices to discuss this issue with. A discussion about the ban's knock-on effects among creators, users, and larger GenZ culture around it isn't going to happen because this site doesn't really have much of those populations on it.

As far as what's next, it's up to the Biden and Trump admins to see what happens next. If deadlines are extended, what does a good divestiture settlement mean for TikTok? Can the executive department get away with not enforcing this law? And of course, the question that really lies ahead of us: what does this mean for other social media based outside of the US like Telegram, Line, and KakaoTalk?

Some opinions here are super ignorant. Yes Tiktok has lots of silly videos but it also is a way for many talented people to reach their audience. Many small business owners and indie artists depend on it to make a living.

Wouldn't those creators just shift to Shorts and Reels?

Looking forward to seeing the ECJ order Meta to sell its European operations to a European company.

I hope trump will reverse this action. I don't want government to decide what I am allowed to watch.

> don't want government to decide what I am allowed to watch

We’ve had almost a century of foreign-ownership limits for media properties [1]. (It’s recently been relaxed but not released [2].)

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...

[2] https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2017/02/articles/fcc-approv...

It is a law passed by congress. The only way to reverse it is to (a) have a court invalidate the law (already tried) or (b) have congress reverse the law. Trump can say something about its enforcement, but he can't actually reverse the law (at least according to the constitution, which he also said he wanted to interpret differently).

Trump will reverse it by letting one of his donors buy TikTok and restart it. It's better off dead.

Luckily they don't, the first amendment is very strong, they just say the PRC cannot control social apps in the US.

Are you ok with the Chinese government deciding what you’re allowed to watch?

Huh? how are they deciding? Every time you watch a video or install an app it's your decision.

Sure, when I use ${Chinese_App}, I expect a Chinese bias to the algorithm. Same with every other aggregation service or media provider. Same way I expect a US bias to moderation here or on other US sites.

You can get around it right now.

Although Trump is the one who initiated the ban in the first place. And now he can play hero for all the TikTok addicts.

Of course he will reverse it, but just as obviously he was the one who asked ByteDance to block it today...

Biden said (a day or two ago) he will leave enforcement of the ban up to Trump, and ByteDance have been fighting against the ban since it was ever suggested ... so why do you think ByteDance are now voluntarily shutting down access today?!!

It's really no mystery - Trump has already been talking to ByteDance and agreed to let them continue operations in return for favors to himself which have yet to be discovered. As part of this deal, Trump requested ByteDance to shut it down today, so that he can be the hero and have it reenabled tomorrow or soon after (according to how he wants the optics to play out - pretending to take some time to "make a deal", or an immediate "day 1 - look at how great trump is").

You people are being manipulated like sheep. Calm down, it'll be back very soon.

No Chinese apps should be allowed to operate in USA while similar US apps are banned in China.

It actually happened… I guess Instagram and YouTube will be getting a tonne more traffic then

Until lunchtime tomorrow?

In related news, people are flooding social music service Hangout.fm to discover new music

I was curious and gave this site a shot.

You know what would be great for a music site? If someone new was able to instantly hear music!

Nope. After 5 mins of UI Ninjutsu, I gave up.

Is this going to be a crazy year?

I’d be shocked if this is anywhere close to the craziest thing that happens this year, so, yes.

Media approved by the state (of _) shall be the only media you all can freely access.

The real loss here is when my kids realized that they can no longer access CapCut.

Anybody who thinks TikTok is coming back anytime soon is a sucker. They aren't selling and the law only allows for extensions if they are in the process of selling. Trump may be able to violate the law with impunity thanks to the morons on our Supreme Court but nobody else involved with the TikTok ban (Google, Apple, Oracle) has that luxury.

This was one for the (people who need to electronically hit) books.

TikTok is a dumb, cringy, addictive product. That is enough for it to be banned in my book, regardless even of "propaganda, surveillance" etc. stuff. I can't even imagine how little life you have to have to tolerate using it.

And its off to the races who creates the most addictive successor

A sad day for the country that holds free speech in high regard

this is going to be the most productive sunday in US history

ByteDance has agency.

They had the chance to divest TikToc and chose not to.

It’s sad to see so many people have been brainwashed… please think independently based on facts you can verify first hand … refrain from trusting anyone, especially the deep state people and politicians..

How is it that people still don't see thru this violation of their free speech right?

TikTok got banned for one and only one reason: to silence the narrative around a 70 year old war.

Sources:

- ADL: "we have a major major major generational problem" ... "we have a tiktok problem" http://web.archive.org/web/20231116180709/https://media.mehr...

- US Representative (MIT alum): everyone in the U.S. Congress "has an AIPAC person" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2reaGhLnYI

False claims for the reason for the ban:

- Tiktok has great content and a great algorithm to help you find it (that's a good thing)

- Tiktok spies and collects data, such as scraping your clipboard, network (Apple iOS sandboxing prevents any app from doing so without explicit user permission - technical audience here shouldn't fall for this one easily)

- Tiktok collects face recognition data on citizens worldwide (anyone scraping Instagram can do that - technical audience here shouldn't fall for this one easily)

- Tiktok is addictive, and designed to be (so is Instagram, and?)

- Tiktok is cultural expression, and contributes to people's feeling of identity (good; the more diverse cultural expressions the better)

- Tiktok provides a platform for critical thinking and debate (not really a bad thing if you think about it)

- Tiktok contributed to Brexit, and similar political crises in the EU (so does X)

- Tiktok is part of the Chinese 100 year marathon strategy (vague scare tactic)

I wonder. Isn't it that type of "ban" that simple VPN to Europe resolve? I wouldn't be surprised if zoomers would watch tutorials how to get vpn on instagram right now.

Depends how it is implemented. If it is just suspension of US accounts, VPN could not help.

You are right

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna18...

So young people learn how to use VPN and web apps.

This is taste of US so called democracy and freedom

I wish for TikTok-style short form lowest common denominator videos to fall out of fashion.

Trying to copy TikTok is probably the worst thing Instagram has done. Their “suggested reels” are a cancer.

Even the copies are crazy addictive. Facebook got me in my feed, and then so did YouTube. You can spend hours just consuming things...

The story everyone seems to be missing is how gatekeeping app stores are enforcing it. That is, if TikTok was sold as a "desktop program" which came in an envelope, and was given away for free just as America Online did decades ago, it very likely would be untouchable under the first amendment. The gatekeeping mechanisms at play are a large story that we've become ignorant to.

>TikTok, however, suggested this was not enough assurance for “critical service providers” to continue listing or hosting the app in the United States unless the Biden administration...

This would be a joke statement 20 years ago.

> and was given away for free just as America Online did decades ago, it very likely would be untouchable under the first amendment.

Even if they could distribute it under 1st amendment l, what is stopping authorities from IP blocking TikTok servers? Gatekeeping can take place pretty deep in the OSI network stack, at levels that transmit data that can no longer simply be characterized as speech.

There is no "great firewall" on my side and there never will be.

My 12 year old daughter just walked over excited that Tik Tok was working again. I’m like “I wonder if Trump worked over the weekend to fix Tik Tok.” Sure enough: https://wgme.com/news/nation-world/tiktok-begins-restoring-s.... She gave me a high five lol.

Maybe US Productivity will see a boost now.

Is it possible that all of these are true at the same time?

- Tiktok has great content and a great algorithm to help you find it

- Tiktok advances Chinese interests

- Tiktok spies and collects data, such as scraping your clipboard, network

- Tiktok collects face recognition data on citizens worldwide

- Tiktok is addictive, and designed to be

- Tiktok is cultural expression, and contributes to people's feeling of identity

- Tiktok provides a platform for critical thinking and debate

- Trump wants to control it for his own profit motive, not because it's what's best for the US

- Tiktok contributed to Brexit, and similar political crises in the EU

- Tiktok is part of the Chinese 100 year marathon strategy

and so on...

>Tiktok contributed to Brexit

This does not seem possible, Tiktok was launched in 2016.

Fair point :D it was more about arguing that the situation is complex and it can be an excellent and terrible app at the same time, depending on what your measure is.

Not sure how I feel about this. I don’t like the precedent, but I also loathe this industry. It’s a bit like heavy handed crackdowns on tobacco. Yeah, I lean liberal/libertarian but cancer.

I see nothing redeeming in these addictive slop factories. They create nothing and the content on them is trash. All they do is hack your dopamine system to shovel in ads, empty filler, or worse hate and fear porn.

There’s nothing they do that can’t better be done by forums, chat, the web, even AI agents, without the destruction of attention span and brain rot.

I have a teenager who regularly requests his TikTok screen time allowance to be reduced. He wants to not know the passcode even though he is well old enough to know it if he wants.

What this temporary outage might do is have the opposite effect TikTok expects - to show people they need a break from such an addictive app.

Stranger things have happened on the internet. The longer before Trump "cuts a deal" the more I expect people to press the question - why allow China access to this market if China is shut to our social media apps ?

What are we? a Communism 3rd world country?

Open to open countries. Closed to closed ones. Reciprocity is not hypocrisy.

This thread is trying to have a serious conversation about the merits and dangers of the US banning TikTok. I don’t think it’s going to happen. There’s too much value for Trump to leave on the table. He’s a showman and he’s giving us, mainly gen-z, a show. On Monday he will “save” TikTok. He can ingratiate himself with a demographic that historically had not leaned conservative. It seems so obvious yet I see people trying to debate the ban as if it’s going to stay in place. It won’t.

Maybe. Or it could get worse.

We put communist sympathizers in jail in the past. We imprisoned 100k innocent Japanese US citizens in concentration camps.

Instead of rolling the ban back this could be the first event in a new kind of McCarthyism.

Be careful. Being seen as soft towards China could make you an enemy of the state soon, if it doesn’t already.

When does X go dark too? It's a platform that spreads hate, racism, misogyny and other right wing fascists agenda under Musk's rule. Or is this OK, is this a new policy of USA?

but it has flaws too!

I hope all other countries ban/block Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft social apps, and throw in Discord as well.

Then, when the civilians are tired of this bullshit and the dust settles, we emerge with truly decentralized social networks.

Note that the outgoing Biden administration has stated that it won’t enforce the TikTok ban today, choosing to leave implementation of the law to the incoming Trump administration. TikTok shutting down today is an internal choice.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-wont-enforce-tik...

In all the internet posts about this, I've never seen a response to the fact that China has been doing this to US tech interests basically forever, and even the EU has done its utmost to severely handicap US tech companies for the same reasons. Why hold the US to a double standard against our own interests? TikTok is the exact same garbage you can get from Insta, YouTube, for fuck's sake even LinkedIn has video now. What is the incentive to allow a hostile foreign power that repeatedly and overtly attacks our infrastructure to control the biggest player?

> TikTok is the exact same garbage you can get from Insta, YouTube, for fuck's sake even LinkedIn has video now

As a user of TikTok and Instagram Reels, TikTok had an actually good algorithm that would show you interesting things after you showed interest. I found a lot of film students with great reviews through TikTok. Instagram and YouTube don't care to show you that kind of thing.

Instantly +20% GDP across the country

Its kinda morbidly amuzing to ponder what European countries (and others besides the 'quarreling' US/China duo) will do now.

Will they also ban TikTok as a security threat? If not, will they issue a statement contradicting US actions?

If they do, what about US owned platforms that have been known to e.g., interefere with European elections (Facebook / Cambridge Analytica) and (at least) one of the owners openly supports certain type of party across the continent?

What a grotesque theater. How much more hypocricy can the political classes that enabled the wholesale enshittificarion of our digital lives get away with?

How does this work, why are they banning individual companies? Shouldn't they be pointing to the regulation broken (or just set up such regulation)? Is the problem here that this is on the federal level and there is are no federal privacy regulations so they just have to wing it?

Speaking of which, how does this work with the GDPR? Does TikTok abide by the GDPR in Europe or are they just not able to sanction them for violating it?

Incredible how short peoples' memories are. "The American security aparatus says its dangerous" has historically been a very poor indicator of a threat to the American people, and usually forecasts misguided geoplotical interests that will have long lasting echoes. Gulf of Tonkin, Red Scare, WMDs, etc. No idea why people believe now, over the dancing app, the secret briefing given to congress was factual. In fact many congress people have said is was extremely vague with 0 evidence aside from "we think this is happening, and it definitely could happen".

It becomes more and more clear that the people supporting this app don't use the app, making it easy to imagine the worst. The reality of this situation seems very obvious to me: Meta sees the future, and knows that they have lost the next generation to tiktok and social media platforms that are authentic. FB is doomed, Instagram is all ads and manicured posts, and the Metaverse is perpetually 10 years ahead of the tech. They wanted to do what they did last time they needed to stay relevant: buy a relevant company (Instagram). Tiktok wasnt interested. So since they cant compete they spend a fraftion of the money they would need to compete fairly to simply bribe the government to ban the app. Its a "security risk"! And look, they are saying all these bad things about Israel, your AIPAC bribers hate the app too! Its definitely not that Israel is a pariah state that the entire world except for the US (where bribery is legal and encouraged) despises because of their crimes against humanity, its the Chinese government controlling the app! And you have no way of forcing them to censor the news like you can on Meta and MSM! Sprinkle some red scare in the pot, talk ominously about China, and now all the representatives (avg age 63 btw) are scared about the chinese controlled brain control app that all their grandkids love.

Anytime something remotely political comes up on HN I'm reminded that the people that tend to be very matter of fact and well informed on the intricacies of tech are no more immune to tribalism and groupthink than anyone else. No ciritical thought when the government says something they agree with, no matter how nebulous and manufactured it is. And yes, I include myself in that group. Reminds me to take everything I read on here with a healthy grain of salt because this same tribalist-bias exists in seemingly objective tech discussion.

I’m too old to be optimistic but this was a great final message from the Biden administration: that the US still has the courage and power to stand up for itself and fight back. Regardless of what happens in the next 4 years of the coward administration that’s coming, the phantom of a real president/government will at least (hopefully) be there.

Regardless of what you think about TikTok or Trump, we can probably all acknowledge this is a “slow ball” pitch that he can hit out of the park politically in a number of ways. People in this thread have mentioned the flip flopping but I don’t think mid term voters care about that. Nor do the Chinese as this brings a bargaining chip to the table.

> “I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate. You know, it’s appropriate. We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation,” Trump told the outlet.

I would have thought that indeed, they have looked at it already carefully.

Now do Facebook

The message also suggests this may only be a temporary disappearance. TikTok credits President-elect Donald Trump for indicating “he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office,” with users urged to “stay tuned!”

This is the most unusual endorsement I've seen, admittedly of a most unusual President.

Everyone must keep in mind that the asian continent had a long issue with communism, and although it's almost extinguished, we should still be very careful about it, like a staph (staffing?) infection almost. Also lets not forget China bans all the western stuff outright yea?

The extreme irony here, is that what tiktok is being banned for -the ability to sway national opinion, is exactly what they are doing with that Trump ego stroking message.

If that message and it's implications are flying over your head, please look up.

Where I struggle with the narrative that I see often on here is regarding free speech, the idea that this is 1984/Animal Farm or some kind of antidemocratic action. The CCP has tight control over every company in mainland China. Until you can prove to me that the US government is controlling Meta, any of the whataboutism is just pointless. China is a fairly nefarious actor on the world stage, they grip media with an iron fist and within the country there is no room for swaying opinions, country and party first. ByteDance US had years to figure out an IPO or another way to divest controlling ownership from its mainland counterpart. They did nothing and only argued on free speech. The decision was not one of rational economic thinking, which makes you wonder what they want to achieve.

China does play a real threat to American and other western interests and has done so for many years. If you have evidence that ByteDance is not controlled by the CCP or that the CCP has not very openly played many games both economically, politically and socially I would be happy to see that evidence.

The levels of McCarthyism and apparent Sinophobia in this thread astounds me.

“The kids are watching communist propaganda from the CCP!”

Americans on TikTok watch content from other Americans. I know a big complaint the government had was the overflow of support for the Palestinian people compared to Israel.

Are you guys sure you’ve even used the app before? I used it some time ago and it was just other Americans doing dumb stuff or making political videos.

People really just believe the first thing their government tells them and believes it so strictly? “They said it is a national security concern so I believe them and must spread their message!”

Seems to me that TikTok had Americans on there sharing anti-Israel and anti-America content on there with other Americans. Didn’t Ted Cruz bring that up specifically to the CEO of TikTok as a problem?

> The levels of McCarthyism and apparent Sinophobia in this thread astounds me.

Same for me, but I’m also extremely confused at the naivety of many commenters here who think ByteDance is somehow a company independent from China government and it’s only duty is to make money and that it somehow more important to have freedom of foreign business than freedom from foreign interference.

To those with knowledge in security, what exactly were the concerns? Here are the four I can think of.

- Users tend to use the same passwords across apps. It would be trivial for TikTok to provide an email + password combo to CCP.

- Until 2020, the tiktok iOS app was accessing the system clipboard at all times that TikTok was running (even in the background) https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/26/21304228/tiktok-security-...

- A sort of vague concern that because CCP can easily compel Chinese companies, it could easily compel TikTok to show / not-show various content to American users. (this could stir political tensions, misinformation etc).

- TikTok (and by extension CPP) could access any content/messages that the app has access to. E.g. Phone contacts (if permission given), private messages sent on TikTok app (possibly even if just typed but not sent).

What else?

There's the "Grindr threat"[1]

There are metadata threats around who's connected to whom, where users are, where they go, etc.

There can be leaked data in videos posted by military personnel

1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...

> the "Grindr threat"

Hadn't heard of this. The linked article explains:

> At the time of Reuters’ March 2019 report, it was unclear what CFIUS’s specific concerns were, but the FT says the committee worried the Chinese government could use personal data from the app to blackmail US citizens — which could include US government officials.

Right. Grindr puts IP location and and userid information in the ad exchanges so anyone programmatically buying knows which politician/public person is gay and where they are.

We also know who is fat because myfitnesspal does the same thing.

We also know who is pregnant, who has recently been raped, who feels vulnerable. And so on. You see an ad? We know a thing. We know if you like boobs even if you don’t.

Without trying to speak to what American governments and corporations have done with that knowledge, the “security” point is that the Chinese government has this knowledge as well, and the fear they can do something with it.

That being said, what Cambridge Analytica did (a British company) with this kind of knowledge is well-documented, so I can agree the fear is warranted by both those who seek to monopolise those powers, and those who seek to escape them.

I wonder how much TikTok will have to personally pay Trump to get reinstated. What would that be worth? Is it a one time fee, or could it repeat over time. Bad situation to be in for TikTok.

Tiktok works fine for me if I pretend to be in Singapore.

I open up tiktok: I see cute dog videos.

I open up Twitter: Immediately get pushed white nationalist great replacement was Hitler actually bad? posts.

Incredible.

Cool. Now, in Europe, please.

The land of the free

It's funny that Trump started this ban attempt, and now people look forward for him to undo the ban. Lord and Saviour...

Finally

Good.

good, not only is it malware/spyware, the chinese government can shape the beliefs and behaviors of > 100,000,000 americans at the flip of a switch. albeit users are idiots for giving their attention in the first place. and because capitalism = god, will probably end up selling to the saudis and/or elon co.

> Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the ban

I already foresee a Mueller investigation part #2 “Trump is a Chinese puppet” stories.

I generally care about good and bad arguments even if I agree or disagree with the direction of the argument itself.

But in terms of TikTok, I don't care. Burn it down. If Trump uses his first 100 days to pressure his 3 vote majority in the House to vote to overturn something they passed overwhelmingly it's a pretty startling indication of his priorities and loyalties in his second term. His crypto-scam this weekend is only the prologue.

Sheep: the wolves voted unanimously

Why did they vote unanimously? Why was it bundled into a rushed relief bill?

Now Marvel Snap is claiming it is banned in the US by the same mechanism due to ownership by ByteDance.

As long as google, …. All can run in china. It is ok. If not it is unfair and not ok.

"Trump is gonna unban us!" - TikTok's wet dream.

“Give us more control over your algorithm and we will let you stick around”

And just like that Trump overturns it. Lost opportunity to actually break the psychological hold tiktok has on people. How can a single branch (in this case one person) override the other two branches of government? I thought that's what checks and balances were all about? The farther we get from "well that's a law, but we are going to selectively enforce it" the worse we will get as a society (see the former DA Gascons Los Angeles policy on not enforcing theft). Repeal the laws that don't make sense and enforce the ones on the books. The alternative is that we will continue to accumulate laws to the point everything is illegal and their enforcement determined by individuals which is effectively the same as no laws and everyone is subject to those with power. That is an existential threat to freedom.

TikTok has now announced a reversal and is turning it back on.

This just means that China will use bots on american social media for influence. Honsestly, considering Trump got elected, that is enough.

Dont think this will affect foreign influence by china much.

controlling the algorithm is a lot more subtle than using bots. it's pretty easy to notice bots and shills. it's harder to notice when it's all humans with sincere beliefs, just that some beliefs are overrepresented.

>it's pretty easy to notice bots and shills

You only notice the bots that you notice. How do you know how many bots you encounter where you dont realize it is a bot? Knowing this number is necessary to make the claim that claim, but it is fundamentally unknowable.

Now let's do the same with X (South African foreign adversary) and Meta (Aliens from planet Gooblidook).

Yes it is a joke. But whether it is outsized influence of foreign power or uber rich nutter, what's the difference...

My unpopular opinion on this:

- Trump schemes to get TikTok blocked in the US

- He waits till he is in charge

- Presents himself as White Knight (or rather Orange Knight?)

- Gets TikTok unbanned

- Popularity with the younger generation rises

- ...profit?

Trump will of course be happy to be perceived as the hero that unblocked TikTok (after having requested ByteDance to block it today), but I'm sure "profit" comes first. He isn't doing this to be nice to China, or nice to the US's TikTok-addicted youth ... he's doing this because it puts money into the pocket of Donald Trump .. precisely in what way(s) remains to be discovered.

I wonder what new and incredible things American teens will learn about themselves and life tomorrow now that their phones are boring. Too bad this probably ends Monday.

Oh did they ban YouTube too? Thank God.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social...

YouTube is currently the app that is ruining my life...

It is also weird that a few days ago in the YouTube non official SoaceX channel with millions of subscribers, an artificial Elon Musk asked people to send cryptocurrencies to an address. This was the biggest scam at scale in realtime that I experienced.

I’ve been getting a lot of garbage grade YouTube ads too, like a video version of the crude weight loss drawing banner ads that ookla used to serve. I wonder if we’re being punished for using adblockers. Or are you saying the actual video was a scam?

>YouTube non official SoaceX channel with millions of subscribers

This is a 50/50 split between YT and SpaceX on the problem.

That spaceX does not broadcast it live on YT leaves an opening for the scammers to get a popular channel up.

Now, the scammer channels you see are what happens when an actual big name channel with a lot of followers gets hacked, all the old videos deleted, then they start that feed of the launch and turn it to a bitcoin scam at/right after the launch part.

It’s worth noting that SpaceX has the freedom to choose not to broadcast on YouTube. However, YouTube bears significant responsibility for addressing scams on a large scale. This isn’t about nitpicking a minor video but about taking action against the platform’s top content of the day when it involves scams.

SpaceX does have the freedom to choose, but as they say, freedom isn't free and comes with costs. In this case the cost is people that are interested in their launches getting scammed.

It's also difficult on the YT side. Users are 'free' to change their channel name. You are also 'free'ish to broadcast the SpaceX stream, as many other non-bitcoin channels do it. It's really the near end of the broadcast where the scam it self comes in.

This said, YT does need to put a special flag in for channel names like SpaceX and do an immediate check or put some kind of very long delay in particular channel name changes.

What you’re essentially saying about SpaceX is akin to arguing that if you’re free to choose not to carry a gun, you lose the ability to defend yourself against asassins, turning the victim into the responsible.

Being right also gives you the option of being dead right.

Tiktokers have been discussing where to be reached on other apps for a while now.

Claude summary of the Supreme Court opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

1. Background on TikTok: - Launched in 2017, TikTok has over 170 million U.S. users and 1 billion worldwide - Users create, publish, view, share and interact with short videos with audio and text - Features a personalized "For You" page using a proprietary algorithm - Operated in the U.S. by TikTok Inc. (California-based company) - Ultimate parent company is ByteDance Ltd., a private Chinese company that: - Owns TikTok's algorithm (developed/maintained in China) - Develops portions of TikTok's source code - Is subject to Chinese laws requiring cooperation with intelligence work and government data access

2. Arguments by Petitioners (TikTok & Users): - First Amendment violations due to: - Burden on content moderation and content generation - Restricting access to a distinct medium of expression - Limiting association with preferred speakers/editors - Restricting receipt of information and ideas - Argued the Act should face strict scrutiny as content-based regulation - Claimed divestiture within 270 days is commercially infeasible, making it an effective ban - Argued alternative measures could address security concerns without banning TikTok

3. Arguments by Respondents (Government): - Primary justification: Preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170M U.S. users - Secondary justification: Preventing foreign adversary control over the recommendation algorithm - Argued for intermediate scrutiny as content-neutral regulation - Cited national security concerns and Chinese laws requiring data sharing - Pointed to failed negotiations with ByteDance for alternative security measures

4. Main Opinion: The Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Act does not violate the First Amendment, finding: - Applied intermediate scrutiny as the Act is content-neutral - Found compelling government interest in preventing Chinese data collection - Determined the Act is sufficiently tailored to address security concerns - Notable quote: "Data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age. But TikTok's scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government's national security concerns."

5. Concurring Opinions: Justice Sotomayor: - Agreed with outcome but argued First Amendment clearly applies - Cited TikTok's expressive activity in "compiling and curating" material

Justice Gorsuch: - Expressed concerns about rushed timeline (14 days to resolve) - Praised Court for not considering classified evidence hidden from petitioners - Questioned whether law is truly "content neutral" - Agreed government has compelling interest in preventing data harvesting - Found law appropriately tailored after other solutions proved inadequate

6. Dissenting Opinions: None filed.

7. Other Relevant Details: - The Court emphasized the narrow scope of its ruling given the novel technology issues - Showed substantial deference to Congress's national security judgments - The Act was passed with strong bipartisan support (352-65 in House, 79-18 in Senate) - The Court noted but did not rely on classified evidence in reaching its decision

The Supreme Court's ruling allows the Act to take effect, requiring TikTok to either complete a qualified divestiture from Chinese ownership or cease U.S. operations, marking a significant development in the intersection of national security, technology regulation, and First Amendment rights.

Good

Another bite the dust.

Who's next ?

Who's next ?

All Chinese owned social media including the ones people were jumping to unless the US changed the wording in the ban. I guess we would have to wait and see what happens.

"Okay, now it is really bad:

The ban – which is an incredible overreach – was a bipartisan effort by congress. Sticking it to Biden seems very, very off.

Biden explicitly left the decision if and how it is enforced to Trump. ⇒ No reason to go dark now to have a huge: “Thank you, tangerine tyrant, that you are willing to maybe save us!”

I do enjoy Tik Tok a lot, but is it unanimously good or even only unproblematic? Hell, no. It is an indoctrination machine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/18/tiktok-..."

https://social.tchncs.de/@HeptaSean/113854276302658566

great news

I’m honestly surprised at how many HN’ers are fine with totalitarianism as long as the bogeyman are Chinese.

My opinion. Assuming just because you have the ability to freely listen to everyone else drivel does not mean you made that decision freely.

I am actively anti-social media myself, it's a hard stance I have and I have had to effectively "die on that hill".

The amount of time our social media team has had serious issues with me refusing to comply with their requests to be involved with their current tiktok trend, arguing about "but you need to be relevant to the modern generation" when my argument is exactly the thing Tiktok was banned for, I want to be in control of who has my data. That is bad enough already but to freely just give my likeness to a chinese owned company to sell adverts however they like?

It's got nothing to do with "relevance" its a moral standing. And no I don't think tiktok is the only guilty platform but it's a step in the right direction concidering how absolutely mindless and time consuming the content is.

And no matter how strongly you believe you have free will and freedom of thought, you are a reflection of the people you surround yourself with and I would make the argument the media you consume.

And tiktok specifically is significantly more addictive than other media, sure the same argument can be made for youtube shorts and IG reels and whatever else which is the current short form content, and the biggest issue there is: there's no way to justify your stance, to bring evidence to back your case.

All that there is is the ability to state your point and the majority of users will follow if you state it compellingly enough. It's mass propaganda taken to the extreme.

I strongly believe YouTube shorts etc should follow the same fate as tiktok has. It should be regulated as strongly as Narcotics because it is equally as addictive and imho has a similar effect on society.

Sorry for the rant but as I said, I have a moral stance on this topic and for some reason society in general decided it needs to be faught with the zeal of the crusades.

Why is all of our media bombarded with the ban when it has been signed into law and backed by the relevant countries highest powers.

If it was a unanimous vote in government and held up by the supreme court why is media against it? They are scared the next step is them.

This isn't the media holding government accountable, this is media swaying the general public's opinion. This[1] comment on HN just proves that. They had no interest in tiktok, if media let it just go quietly into the night they would still have no interest but now that the fact that its disappearance has been shouted from every rooftop to every single human being the addiction crysis has spread to them. "Fear of missing out" strikes again.

Media is designed to control and the first punch thrown against it is being countered, who will win in the end?

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42754640

Someone should measure how much the collective mental health in America increases while TikTok is unavailable.

Where will the zoomers go?

I’m 41 and watch 20-25 hours of TikTok a week. I love it. Glad it’ll be back early next week, most likely.

Lol I'm about your age and I'm sometimes embarrassed about the hour or two I end up watching across all my bathroom sessions but c'mon 25 hours. That's too much.

Who’s to say it’s too much? I enjoy it.

I’m over 1/2-way thru my life. I think I know what I like doing with my time by this point.

I'll watch 90 mins of TikTok and think I could have watched an entire movie; then I remember I actually enjoyed myself anyway and stomp down the guilty feeling.

What makes you confident it will be back early next week?

Looks like it’s back already lol.

The thing that made me confident was that the mentioned Trump by name (telling me they knew he was going to make a change).

This is unfortunate for women in the US, many of whom were using TikTok to raise consciousness of 4B, a protest movement originating in South Korea that calls for women to fight widespread societal misogyny and boycott men. It went viral on TikTok in the US after Trump's win in November and has been steadily increasing in reach and impact since.

Hopefully this movement will continue on other social media. Though unfortunately none are quite as light on censorship as TikTok is for feminist voices, often unfairly framing these as "hate".

TikTok actively censored videos containing the word "rape", "assault", and "sex", preventing women on the app from honestly talking about their negative experiences with men. I do not think it's a great loss for Feminism to see the app delisted and it's users migrate elsewhere

That isn't a problem in reality as everyone just uses euphemisms which everyone else understands but TikTok doesn't censor. It's been this way for years, we got used to it.

This is the same for YouTube and Instagram unless you don't want your content shown to anyone.

This is just the state of social media...

4B was pretty limited in South Korea according to Wikipedia and anecdotally the same appears to be true in US. Anecdotally I see it shared mostly by women who are dating or actively in relationships.

Hallelujah but the damage to society has already been done. Instagram next maybe?

There are a number of cults in the US with a strong leader, living in a rural area where information about the world outside is limited. There are Hasidic dynasties and Christian groups like this. To a lesser but wider degree there are fundamental Protestant groups like this - not exactly cults, but with some of this behavior.

We see a celebration of this kind of thinking here. People want to be kept ignorant of the outside world and to keep others ignorant as well. It's a natural way to think, in the context of the road the US has been heading down for decades.

People here are excited the US will be censoring seditious content just like China does. It reminds me less of China and more of post-1905, pre-1914 Russia and the ministry of internal affairs Bureau of Censorship.

Not that it's the only factor, but I watch the US Congress sanctioning the UN and International Criminal Court for investigating the genocide in Gaza, and how many expressed their unhappiness about how Tiktok was a fissure in the US media bubble regarding that. Now Americans can be in their bubble a little longer, unaware of what the rest of the world thinks.

HN is a tightly controlled media platform and I don't expect any honest discussion of this issue here.

Wow, jump straight to the bad faith assumptions huh?

Much ado about nothing! Not available for download a day at max! (You can still use the app if it’s already installed)

The ban will be repealed on Monday and it will be sold to US tech lords by month’s end. The damn hysteria is embarrassing

That’s not true though.

Tik Tok chose to block US users this evening even though that’s technically not what the bill asks for.

ByteDance is flexing as well. It knows it’s not going anywhere.

I'd have to guess this manufactured drama was agreed/requested by Trump, so that he can act the hero by making a "deal" to get it unblocked tomorrow or soon after.

The real question here is "What's in it for Trump?". He doesn't do anything without expecting something in return. What is Trump personally getting out of (about to) letting TikTok continue?

There's always the basic drives that his mental illness place in his actions. If nothing else, attention, validation and social status are plenty enough for someone of his condition, that of narcissism.

China and USA are both same in a way so I dnt give a f..k which side wins. World will be a little better place with one less bully

Seeing someone create a whole new account just to say this take amuses me, as if it was a knee-jerk reaction but with calculated thought on the optics of saying it.

probably a wumao

they get paid to post pro-China messages

Sometimes they don't even need to get paid. Chinese online patriotic outrage can be very strong.

Americans can be just as passionate too.

The 170 million users of this digital crack / cocaine platform has now got their supply cut off and its users are desperately running for the next hit. Rednote "Xiaohongshu" appears to be where they are going to.

It is also a test for "Rednote" and if they grow extremely fast in the next 90 days then that will be another ban target. But this is all temporary and they will run back to TikTok again.

But again 170 million users just had their crack / cocaine supply cut off. Now is the time for them to reflect and cure their addiction.

the world would be an infinitely better place if those 170 million people were capable of that. unfortunately, i think, by virtue of consuming short form content in 2025, they are beyond help.

Zuckerberg would rather have them hooked on the "save europa" content in his platform, there's little more than that to this ban.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com