Wouldn't the middle ground be to have ISPs ban TikTok? The US doesn't need to create a firewall themselves, they can just rely on the fact that internet providers are in effect an oligopoly, and simply tell all 5 or so of them to prevent their users from accessing the website/service. This would, of course, be circumventable by a VPN, but that's a degree of rigor good enough for China, so it should be fine here.
The issue is under what authority does the government have to put such a ban in place. There isn't one today. The article discusses some attempts to work around that issue, all of which are problematic.
The article does not mention it but all the work arounds also rely on the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company. So far they have been reluctant to change that but they could easily incorporate in the US. The parent company today is Chinese but the parent could become a US or EU company and then all of this banning talk gets even more dicey to pull off.
What's your reasoning for why import/export controls are insufficient legal grounds?
I haven't dug into it, but I'm not aware off the top of my head of any court ruling that such controls cannot apply to software, e.g., encryption export controls in the 1990s.
> at worst, a ban would force us to either adopt China’s censorship technology or create our own equivalent.
When india banned tiktok, it was tiktok that actively enforced the ban. Tiktok bans all indian based IPs. I'm sure they'll do the same if the US bans tiktok.
As for censorship, we already have a censorship regime. It's as total, centralized and oppressive as anything we pretend exists in china.
> Unlike authoritarian states such as China, the US has a free, uncensored Internet.
That's because we invented the Internet and we controlled the commanding heights. We could use the internet and social media to brainwash, foster division and destabilize foreign nations. It's amazing how when another nation gets similar capabilities, we suddenly have a change of heart. Just like when we had a monopoly over nuclear weapons, we had no qualms about using it on innocent civilians. Only when someone else got them, we demanded treaties on nuclear technology, weapons, etc to limit the use of nukes.
> Or, at the least, authoritarian government powers like India’s, which could force Internet service providers to censor Internet traffic.
India is authoritarian for protecting its national interests? Is the EU authoritarian for completing banning russian news? Are we authoritarian for banning iranian social media accounts? The only thing suspect about india is why they haven't banned facebook, youtube, etc along with tiktok.
When india does our bidding, we praise them as the largest democracy in the world. When they don't, they are authoritarian. Hopefully, india gets more and more "authoritarian" and improves the lives of their people.
Remember the State Department asking Twitter to delay maintenance to not interrupt the Green Revolution? Boy would Congress be pissed about that if the shoe was on the other foot.
It's honestly amazing the (double-think/double-speak?)/hypocrisy there is.
People talk about banning TikTok from the west, and the majority of people immediately compare your idea with actions taken by oppressive governments - though the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "That's what China would do, are you a Chinese sympathizer? I thought the country was founded on free speech - why do you want to restrict it?" - completely ignoring the fact that it's an app designed and influenced by a primarily Chinese company which has a separate algorithm that encourages "bread and circus" type content in the west vs hard-working and industrious content in China.
People talk about banning Russian media sources from the west - and the majority of people immediately cheer and welcome such a "well-thought, justified" move it is - while the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "It's justified, we don't want to influence people with disinformation produced by Russian actors and negatively influence our support for Ukraine!" - even though I'm very sure the vast majority of people support Ukraine and the actions of the west to support them, knowing that news agencies literally called "Russia Today" are very likely state owned/controlled/manipulated through various avenues, let alone mentioning the United States having media agencies controlled and influenced by capitalist and (by extension) governmental interests.
Both actions at their very base, remove access to consume and contribute to the free-flow of information.
Both actions are justified by governments with some vague, wish-wash reason of "national security".
It's all in how it's marketed to people by the media and their own governments.
I don't know what the correct answer is - there probably isn't a single sole solution to this.
My personal opinion is that all large-scale social media websites that have a significant amount of their revenue come from advertising should be outright banned from existing in the west.
Doesn't matter who or what they're owned by - just outright banned. The consolidation of social media platforms into "the big #", dominated by advertising and governmental interests, is going to be one of the largest reasons why decentralization is going to only grow in popularity over the coming generations.
It’s mind blowing how many of these takes ignore national intelligence/security. As if NSA spying on Americans is seriously the same as the Chinese government spying on Americans.
Enacting data privacy laws is touted as a solution. Is it even technically possible to prevent data collection? Otherwise that will just handicap X’s national security while other countries collect data.
Additionally, there’s enormous opportunity costs associated with importing foreign software services. Why isn’t there 10s of great search engines? Because Google is imported with little-no tariffs to many countries, removing the need for local search services. Same with TikTok. An American company could pop up to fulfill that need.
The US should just tax Bytedance for operating in the USA. As should Canada, UK, etc tax Google. Maybe Michigan should tax california software services too. We’d see a lot more privacy and a lot more diversified technology culture if this happened more.
13 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 43.1 ms ] thread[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/28/tech/tiktok-eu-ban-intl-h...
The article does not mention it but all the work arounds also rely on the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company. So far they have been reluctant to change that but they could easily incorporate in the US. The parent company today is Chinese but the parent could become a US or EU company and then all of this banning talk gets even more dicey to pull off.
I haven't dug into it, but I'm not aware off the top of my head of any court ruling that such controls cannot apply to software, e.g., encryption export controls in the 1990s.
When india banned tiktok, it was tiktok that actively enforced the ban. Tiktok bans all indian based IPs. I'm sure they'll do the same if the US bans tiktok.
As for censorship, we already have a censorship regime. It's as total, centralized and oppressive as anything we pretend exists in china.
> Unlike authoritarian states such as China, the US has a free, uncensored Internet.
That's because we invented the Internet and we controlled the commanding heights. We could use the internet and social media to brainwash, foster division and destabilize foreign nations. It's amazing how when another nation gets similar capabilities, we suddenly have a change of heart. Just like when we had a monopoly over nuclear weapons, we had no qualms about using it on innocent civilians. Only when someone else got them, we demanded treaties on nuclear technology, weapons, etc to limit the use of nukes.
> Or, at the least, authoritarian government powers like India’s, which could force Internet service providers to censor Internet traffic.
India is authoritarian for protecting its national interests? Is the EU authoritarian for completing banning russian news? Are we authoritarian for banning iranian social media accounts? The only thing suspect about india is why they haven't banned facebook, youtube, etc along with tiktok.
When india does our bidding, we praise them as the largest democracy in the world. When they don't, they are authoritarian. Hopefully, india gets more and more "authoritarian" and improves the lives of their people.
People talk about banning TikTok from the west, and the majority of people immediately compare your idea with actions taken by oppressive governments - though the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "That's what China would do, are you a Chinese sympathizer? I thought the country was founded on free speech - why do you want to restrict it?" - completely ignoring the fact that it's an app designed and influenced by a primarily Chinese company which has a separate algorithm that encourages "bread and circus" type content in the west vs hard-working and industrious content in China.
People talk about banning Russian media sources from the west - and the majority of people immediately cheer and welcome such a "well-thought, justified" move it is - while the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "It's justified, we don't want to influence people with disinformation produced by Russian actors and negatively influence our support for Ukraine!" - even though I'm very sure the vast majority of people support Ukraine and the actions of the west to support them, knowing that news agencies literally called "Russia Today" are very likely state owned/controlled/manipulated through various avenues, let alone mentioning the United States having media agencies controlled and influenced by capitalist and (by extension) governmental interests.
Both actions at their very base, remove access to consume and contribute to the free-flow of information.
Both actions are justified by governments with some vague, wish-wash reason of "national security".
It's all in how it's marketed to people by the media and their own governments.
I don't know what the correct answer is - there probably isn't a single sole solution to this.
My personal opinion is that all large-scale social media websites that have a significant amount of their revenue come from advertising should be outright banned from existing in the west.
Doesn't matter who or what they're owned by - just outright banned. The consolidation of social media platforms into "the big #", dominated by advertising and governmental interests, is going to be one of the largest reasons why decentralization is going to only grow in popularity over the coming generations.
Enacting data privacy laws is touted as a solution. Is it even technically possible to prevent data collection? Otherwise that will just handicap X’s national security while other countries collect data.
Additionally, there’s enormous opportunity costs associated with importing foreign software services. Why isn’t there 10s of great search engines? Because Google is imported with little-no tariffs to many countries, removing the need for local search services. Same with TikTok. An American company could pop up to fulfill that need.
The US should just tax Bytedance for operating in the USA. As should Canada, UK, etc tax Google. Maybe Michigan should tax california software services too. We’d see a lot more privacy and a lot more diversified technology culture if this happened more.
We are too late. The ministry of thruth has won.