President signs order refusing to enforce TikTok ban for 75 days | Hacker News Reader

President signs order refusing to enforce TikTok ban for 75 days

theverge.com

61 pointsanigbrowl83 comments

I don't see why this is being flagged. Tiktok is a tech company and this executive order explicitly pauses much anticipated enforcement of a contentious law written specifically for that company. The fact that it's political does not make it somehow irrelevant to the core audience of the site.

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I'd guess (1) there have been major recent threads about this topic, including about this same order (before it was signed); and (2) these threads have been on the flamey/repetitive side.

I dont think its good for anyone that the executive just says it won't enforce a law.

The same mechanism is how cannabis is “legal” in several states — Obama and all subsequent presidents have refused to enforce the federal laws against it.

This is pretty normal. Even George Washington declined to enforce the law at times. A widespread recent example of "discretion" is the lack of enforcement of federal drug laws WRT marijuana. There are 39 states flaunting federal law, and presidents haven't bothered enforcing it.

Yesterday I believe he said it still needs to be at least 50% owned by a US company.

If that remains the case I doubt anything will change and this is just a delay. They made no indication of selling being an option.

So realistically is this anything more than political theatre?

We've lived through this administration once before, it is a flurry of headlines so you can't keep up with anything else.

The law was rushed through before; he could ram through a law canceling the original. As with the original, no research would be required and so theoretically could be signed law by the weekend if desired.

They considered a 20% owned joint venture last Trump administration, so a 50% deal seems like a stretch but not impossible. (It's surely not a coincidence that China also has a 50% joint venture requirement for foreign companies.)

A lot of folks on TikTok have been speculating that Meta/Musk/etc might become owners in some way. Shou, the TikTok CEO - apparently updated his bio to not include "TikTok CEO" post-blackout.

I personally, feel that it's quite a reach for the government to ban social apps such as TikTok. It's pretty much just become endless posts of people trying to make a living off of commission/sales/views. Something will obviously replace it if it does get banned (much like Vine), but "creator culture" is just depressing.

I had long assumed a reverse merge with a company like snap was the right move. It satisfies the requirement but also keeps bytedance somewhat in control since snap is effectively just a horse in trade for them.

We should have much stricter use policies on them. Especially for the younger demographics. Between social media, pay to win gaming, phone access, and loot boxes, we're really just setting young people up for failure.

I'd take a page out of the Korean approach to gaming where your SIN is associated with your login and some activities hold time/usage requirements.

If it were up to me, I'd straight up ban social media for youth and not allow parents to upload so much content involving their kids... Basically stealing the privacy of the kids in the process.

We used to care about privacy in society, but it feels dead now.

Maybe I'm too old, but I DO NOT understand the TikTok livestreams of people sleeping, obvious pre-recorded video, etc...and people sending gifts constantly.

The "creator fund" incentivized just posting a lot, sharing, and once Tiktok shop was introduced almost every other video is someone talking about "Tiktok shop made a mistake on pricing buy this item". Shills all of them. I don't think being a "creator" on TikTok should be a "job" for people.

This law is not about protecting us from the harms of social media, and it doesn't even literally ban TikTok; so this framing of it being whackamole is missing the point.

What we really need is strong data privacy laws and child development guided policies. But that's not the point of the law either.

I guess it depends what lens you are looking through. Most people on TikTok would happily give their SSN, DOB, and any data over to a company to watch videos, make money on silly shit that happens on TikTok.

Other folks think TikTok is legitimately a news source and the government is keeping things from them.

Official post: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/appl...

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42775227)

He just wants a cut of the deal, that’s all. He even said it live on TV: “Without me, they have nothing. With me, they have something. Could be a trillion dollar company. But it depends on what the president, what I say.”

This way, TikTok can retain control of their IP and maybe even a controlling interest if they sell a portion to Trump. It’s corruption all the way down.

The President doesn’t have to enforce the laws he doesn’t like

In fact given the Supreme Court ruling the President can do anything he likes.

yea, given that, I think he should dismantle both house and senate and supreme court as part of DOGE. why bother with the rest of the government at all, that was a stupid all along

This is true, but he also doesn't have the power to grant immunity to the law.

Tech companies are in a pickle, he's expecting them to break the law, but they can be fined absurd sums of money if they do. Either when they piss off Trump and he decides to prosecute, or if the next administration does 4 years from now.

Biden refused to enforce the ban[1], so I really doubt democrats would enforce it 4 years later if they came to power again. The issue isn't very partisan, liberals don't hate TikTok much more than conservatives.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tikt...

Biden declined to initiate legal proceedings in the last 24 hours of his administration... the only notable thing about that is that it isn't notable. It's hardly going to control what happens 4 years from now.

I agree the issue isn't particularly partisan. Both parties were in favour of the ban. The process was started by Trump, continued by Biden, passed by the vast majority of both parties in the house (with republicans more in favor the democrats [1]), and then at the last second both parties realized that it was going to be wildly unpopular...

But who knows how political winds are blowing 4 years from now, or 1 year from now, there's every chance it's now something either or both sides wants to take tech companies to task for not complying with. Or they just want to enforce the rule of law and don't care about TikTok. Or they just don't like tech companies.

[1] Republicans 197 to 15, Democrats 155 to 50 + 1 present vote https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486

Isn't granting a pre emptive pardon just granting immunity? I suppose that's another one for the supreme court to decide.

"Pre-emptive" with respect to pardons is being used as "prior to prosecution, but for past actions". That's nothing new (famous examples include the Nixon pardon, post civil war pardons, etc), but it doesn't grant immunity for future actions like the tech companies would need.

Pardons for future actions are generally accepted as not within the power. Cornell law has a cite for this that you could track down if you want https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...

Also he's not even tried to do that with the tech companies here, so it's besides the point.

I was being facetious

The presidential oath:

> I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Article II of the constitution:

The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

> It’s unclear whether Trump can legally pause the TikTok ban.

Irrespective of my political leaning, Trump's legal scenarios have made me learn more about how the U.S. government works and question hypothetical scenarios that I'd never thought of before. Can a non-member be the speaker of the house? How did the Gulf of Mexico get its name? What procedures are official rules vs. just customary? What does it truly mean to be "impeached"? It's given me a new perspective on how laws are written and appreciation for how rules are defined for future generations.

He's got a maximum of 90 days, right?

That's if he had gone with the delay mechanism built into the law if there was a plan to sell it in the works. This is just ignoring the law.

No, this is something different. The law allows a 90-day reprieve only if significant effort has been expended towards selling TikTok. But ByteDance hasn't made any effort at all. Trump is instead trying to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the law. But the penalties -- and they are very large -- for violating the law can be enforced any time up to 5 years after the violation; that is, after Trump has left office. So his action may not have any effect.

Oh it'll have an effect: the benefit of a law you could enforce but don't is that it sends an unambiguous message about the quid-pro-quo which is expected.

Yeah, but would Verizon (let's say) let TikTok on its servers given that they'll be fined for it retroactively (in 4 years) regardless of Trump's order now? And it's a big fine.

i believe the company you're looking for here is Oracle. Hilarious if a delayed fine comes one day for the masters of costly audits!

> So his action may not have any effect.

Or it creates a strong financial incentive for TikTok to ensure that the next administration will be a continuation of the current one.

It's always nice to have a media company in a politician's back pocket.

Assuming, of course, that SCOTUS has the balls to say "um... no, actually, that wasn't right, and your presidential immunity doesn't cover this."

Which, I doubt they will, but I'm not psychic.

After that, can we please ban it?

Sigh. The entire social network is the epitome of an obnoxious popularity rat race to the bottom under the appearance of democracy, while being completely authoritarian. Worse, the users have been recruited to repeat ad nauseam "popular content gets liked and moved up the feed" or whatever.

While I'm against the federal government having this sort of control, it's just a little bit of relief to see TikTok go away until something else replaces it.

Lot’s of power available. Unlikely.

It'll end up owned by someone adjacent to those in power.

Like Truth Social and Twitter?

> While I'm against the federal government having this sort of control,

To take this position - which is certainly the virtuous one on long time-scales, you have to also take it in the case of content you abhor.

I have the utmost sympathy for wanting a life free from the message for which tiktok is the medium, but using the ring of power will only cause is to deepen an entrench more.

Indeed.

This gets the causality backwards. TikTok et al. is the ring of power and not banning or regulating it will cause the negative side effects on civic society to deepen, further speedrunning the death of liberalism and the very freedoms you're trying to protect. This is the clichéd paradox of tolerance. Sometimes you have to do seemingly illiberal things, like locking up murderers, or breaking up concentrated media ownership, or banning free speech when it comes to defamation and libel, etc., to protect the liberal project from destruction. Social media, especially large platforms owned by single people, is so new that the law just hasn't had time to catch up. As the law finally catches up, don't interpret that as an assault on liberal values. It's not.

The argument that "TikTok et al. is the ring of power", rather than the state, which insists on armed conquest and control of the planet and seems to have not a shred of foresight about the long-term implications of the evolution of the internet, is simply not persuasive.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but tiktok will never hurt me.

You see, this is where I think libertarians get it so wrong. They are focused on the state as the problem. But the way I see it, the problem is the conditions and antecedent causes that lead to the state becoming authoritarian. Libertarians are so focused on attacking the state but they just aren't effective at preventing state power misuse, because they don't understand the deep causality that leads to these bad outcomes. If you have antecedent causes like: high inflation, rampant crime unchecked by a liberal state, concentrated media ownership, a toxic information landscape, a population that isn't educated, extreme inequality, etc -- you will get authoritarianism, guaranteed, and there is no amount of small-government ideology that will be able to overcome the population's desire for a strongman personality. History teaches us that you must use state capacity to attack the antecedent causes, paradoxically it is the only way to prevent an authoritarian state.

social media is the television of the internet.

Everyone agreeing it's a stream of endless garbage isn't a big enough reason to bring the long arm of the law into it IMHO

> After that, can we please ban it?

let's start with IG who lobbied to get a competitor removed instead of building a better app/community.

I just don't like how it's forced the trend of extremely short form video. We're destroying our attention spans.

Facebook is way more harmful than TikTok. TikTok has never caused a genocide, but Facebook has [1].

In October 2021, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager, came forward as a whistleblower, and revealed that Facebook consistently prioritized profit over user safety and public good. She stated that internal documents showed the company was aware of its platforms being used to spread hate, misinformation, and violence but chose to hide this evidence to maintain user engagement and revenue. She asserted that Facebook's algorithms favored content that generated anger and division, which in turn increased user engagement.

The revelations forced Facebook to clean up its act — and lose revenue in the process — but now Zuckerberg is going back to inciting genocides for profit.

Facebook is the app we should be banning.

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

Your article doesn't show that Facebook started a genocide.

And if this was happening today there is nothing to indicate that TikTok, Facebook, Youtube, X etc wouldn't all recommend similar related content.

Facebook's role in the genocide is well known [1].

Following its entry into Myanmar, Facebook became the primary means of communication for many users. However, the platform was poorly staffed, lacking adequate monitoring for local languages. This allowed a systematic campaign of anti-Rohingya propaganda to flourish, primarily orchestrated by members of the Myanmar military. They created fake accounts and pages to disseminate hateful content that incited violence, leading to murders, rapes, and mass displacements of Rohingya people.

Investigations revealed that Facebook's algorithms played a significant role in amplifying harmful content. Amnesty International reported that these algorithms "proactively amplified" anti-Rohingya messages, effectively turning the platform into a tool for hate speech and incitement to violence. The U.N. also noted that Facebook was a "useful instrument" for vilifying the Rohingya, contributing to real-world violence during the military's campaign in 2017.

[1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/research/centers/milton-wolf-semin...

It's not a mutually exclusive issue, so the conclusion of your argument is confusing.

If you're saying just because Facebook is harmful doesn't mean TikTok can't also be harmful then I agree. But one app has already caused a genocide, the other hasn't. So why are we only talking about TikTok as if the other social media apps are safe?

It seems extraordinarily hard to argue that Facebook caused the Rohingya genocide without accepting that TikTok is at least complicit in the Uyghur genocide. (I'm personally skeptical of the argument in both cases.)

TikTok has not been accused of aiding in the genocide of Uyghurs. Repressing their voice, maybe. Genocide, no.

You made that statement with a high level of confidence. What data do you have to support your stance?

Google it.

And you just invalidated all of your opinions in all of your comments on this site. Congratulations.

New norm just dropped: President says one thing, law says another, companies must choose their allegiance to which reality they adhere to but end up in a lose lose situation. Pour one out for Apple's lawyers working late tonight.

From NPR:

The law does allow one exception: TikTok can continue to operate if Trump certifies to Congress that "significant progress" has been made toward TikTok breaking away from ByteDance's ownership. The law requires that Trump show Congress there are legally binding agreements in motion over ownership changes at TikTok.

Isn't that clearly not the case here? How has TikTok shown any movement towards selling.

What is their hangup with selling 50%, really? They’ll be rich!

They don’t want to give it up - CCP doesn’t need the money

Or they don't want US social media companies to buy TikTok US and use their IP to outcompete them across the world?

On that note, many US-based TikTok users have reported that the app and the algorithm are substantially worse since the ban was lifted, with speculation that TikTok might sell a watered down version of the TikTok experience to an American buyer.

That only applies if it happened before January 19th. That's why his 75 day EO just says they won't go after companies who violate the law, rather than say he's using the 90 day extension provided in the law (because it's too late to use that).

Some of the media isn't picking up on this nuance, but it's clear that's why it's a 75 day lack of enforcement, not a 90 day extension.

Which obviously doesn’t prevent them from accruing massive fines for the next administration to enforce.

Yes, and if you read the EO, Section 3(c) states:

"This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

In practical terms, this means:

1. Private parties (like TikTok or its users) cannot sue to enforce this EO

2. If the government doesn't follow the EO, you can't take them to court over it

3. Companies can't use this EO as a legal defense if they're sued

For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection

This is important because while the EO tells app stores and other companies they won't be prosecuted, this disclaimer means they can't legally rely on that promise. If the EO is later found invalid or a new administration changes course, they could still face liability for actions taken during this period.

This creates a risky situation for companies trying to decide whether to comply with the law or follow the EO's guidance. A $5,000 fine per user of a 170M user platform means financial ruin for even Google and Apple if enforced. Larry Ellison (Oracle) might be willing to take that risk, and as a controlling founder he can do so without risk of being fired, but I don't think Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai are going to stick out their neck on this one.

> For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection

Sued by who? Private parties can't sue other private parties over lack of enforcement, for example you cannot sue your neighbor for violating the federal ban on using pot.

Only the govt can prosecute or sue over certain laws. And judges would be certainly sympathetic because of this EO.

by the government… in 2026/28…

As I stated in my other comment, Biden refused to enforce the ban[1], so I really doubt democrats would enforce it 4 years later. It's not exactly a partisan issue, democrats don't hate Tiktok much more than republicans or something.

The real answer is that both sides don't want to take the blame from Tiktok users that rely on it for income, news or entertainment.

That's why the best outcome for them would be the sale of Tiktok to an American, and that's what the law was about. The issue was that Supreme Court ruled at the last minute if it was enforceable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tikt...

Biden refused to enforce the ban for his last day in office. I don’t think that says anything about anyone’s general appetite to follow through.

Obviously the political calculations you mention are real, but also POTUS is legally obligated to faithfully enforce the laws. Many laws they can wriggle out of enforcing under prioritization, but given that this is just a matter of fining companies for unambiguously doing an illegal thing, I suspect that’s going to be a harder argument to make in court (and an especially hard one for Apple/Google et al to bet on them making successfully).

SCOTUS didn’t rule “at the last minute” it was enforceable. Last minute of what clock?

this creates the perfect incentive to ensure that in four years any way to keep the existential risk at bay is worth stopping for

That is 1 of 3 certifications that had to happen in the past.

How's it lose-lose?

Companies can now get away with anything so long as they pay the president a bribe and publicly say "thank you for saving the world." The only way to lose is to not transparently do some easy butt-kissing. And most Americans love watching the corruption. It makes you a good team player.

I guess as long as the President is competent at directing the executive branch to not enforce a law then you're right, you win by making yourself a sycophant. But if you don't trust the President to write an EO that actually prevents you from being fined millions of dollars a day then you're just stuck with ambiguity of what you're allowed to do. Bad for business.

right. it's a forum for start ups and small entrepreneurs, but everyone comment like they are already bigger than meta and as above the law as musk.

This is what companies working with fascist governments have thought, and historically that works well up until things change overnight and they come for you.

The difference between then and now is that the rich are richer than ever before and they can just buy an island thousands of miles away and continue to live a first world lifestyle, completely unaffected.

Lower level workers aren't the ones paying bribes and nobody will care what happens to them.

Fair, but then they nationalize all your assets that you have in the country.

Tim Cook already donated $1m to Trump's inauguration.

And Apple has promised to invest heavily in US manufacturing.

In fact almost all of the Tech CEOs have dutifully kissed the ring and avoided his wrath.

For now. But once you show you're willing, there's often a next ask and then one after that.

I keep seeing this characterization of inauguration donations as "kissing the ring", and I don't understand it. This is a routine practice for presidential inaugurations. Don't get me wrong, I agree it's bad, but the phrase implies a level of fealty that I really don't think is present. Nobody argued that Pfizer or Boeing or J.Lo were kissing Biden's ring in 2020.

You're really misrepresenting what's happening. It's not "president says". President issues an executive order. Which is a very specific constitutional legal procedure with its own rules. It cannot contradict the Constitution. The Supreme Court can overturn it.

This is important, and needs to be understood contextually. They CAN overturn but they don't randomly overturn things: Somebody has to bring action and they have to accept a need to do something, and set it's priority against other work. They can put a stay on things or reverse, but it doesn't happen on a whim. And you need standing to bring things to their attention.

Also the volume of executive orders over time is down net, the last 150 years. With a spike during WW2. Trump is exceeding local norms. But not historical highs.

I happen to think the orders are shit. That's not the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com