I think any challenges to this bill on Constitutional grounds would likely fail due to Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce, to which SCOTUS has been pretty deferential.
> First, this bill isn’t actually aiming to ban TikTok. It really wants to force ByteDance to sell TikTok to someone else who is not controlled by China
Is the US chinaphobic or something? Because they have a good relationship in terms of trade. I'm always reminded of the irony of 'Boycott China' T-Shirts being manufactured in China. As long as the US is the buyer, there's no beef.
Lots of people nervous about no longer being number 1, so they manufacture a narrative of conflict which, as you point out, has nothing to do with reality.
It is easier to demonize others than pass privacy laws and data protections, because the latter would also destroy the Silicon Valley behemoths who pay a lot of money to ensure it won't happen.
It’s not about demonizing, it’s about bringing it under control. Silicon Valley behemoths cooperate with the US government in a way that TikTok does not.
Well, china makes many threats to invade our allies, like Taiwan. (Officially declared or not. We give them weapons)
China is quite literally on a list of military enemies.
Yes, it is reasonably to be fearful of countries that are likely going to go to war with your allies. Just like it is reasonable for the government of ukraine to be afraid of the invading russian army.
Our cold war relationship with china could change in the future. They are going to have to make a lot of changes first, such as swearing off invading our allied country taiwan.
But, until that happens, china is right now on the path to actual war with the US in around 5 years.
I don’t understand the confusion. The CCP and its state-backed entities have been hammering the US with cyber attacks (on DoD targets), corporate and academic spying, and disinformation campaigns. Despite a relatively friendly commercial environment (friendly as long as China gets everything it wants), China’s intelligence apparatus proposes a clear and obvious threat to national security.
I don’t understand all the constitutional hurdles. However, we know that Russia has heavily invested in disinformation and destabilization for decades. We can and should expect the same from China.
> House
House Resolution 7521, dubbed the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” passed the U.S. House Of Representatives on a bipartisan 352-65 vote today.
352-65, that's what our congress thinks of free speech. Who's next after we set the precedent?
Your argument is that an app which is indirectly owned and influenced by the Chinese Communist Party is a conduit for free speech and the US government banning it would be infringing in your free speech... is a strange hill to die on.
There's also no "free speech at all costs" clause. I've always wondered why we allow Chinese companies almost unfettered access to our market when we don't get the same in return. It used to be part of the deal but China was a special case and we held out hope they'd moderate. They have not, so we no longer have to be the one playing by the rules.
That aside, we're not forcing Tiktok to shut down, just forcing them to find a new owner. We're not stopping anyone from posting online, nor are we stopping anyone from posting on tiktok. If anything, this will be good for speech on tiktok, surfacing topics that were banned or deboosted by a company that has to follow the CCP rules.
There's very clear jurisprudence on when free speech can be abridged, and it's not "vague suspicions of being nefarious".
In the 2000s it was the arabs, in the 90s it was the Japanese, in the 80s it was the Russians. What would it look like if we had accumulated laws inhibiting speech from each group? We'd practically have a great firewall by now.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It’s about a foreign hostile government having access and influence over a social network that gathers data on US citizens. You don’t think the CIA leveraged the US based tech companies’ data and influence to exert power? It’s not racist if you assume that China is just following the same playbook that our intelligence services are.
If we want to compete, then we need to do that. Investment not protection is the path forward. Protectionist ideas dont save any one, they just let shitty or inferior products flourish.
How does this theory hold up when your trade partner doesn’t give you equal access to their markets and has the potential to use this media platform to spread disinformation? I don’t think this is an innovation issue as much as a political one.
No equal access, but Tesla, and apple remain popular in china (for those with the money to buy them) in spite of the propaganda.
Our own social media platforms have been doing a perfectly good job of spreading disinformation. And now were building ML systems to accelerate someone's agenda.
You beat tiktok by building what's next and watching it fade like every other platform before it.
Tesla and Apple aren't social media companies. They're also American companies. I'd be against the bill if American companies had as much access and freedom to operate in China as we give Chinese companies operating in the US. Since that's not gonna happen, fine with forcing bytedance to divest.
This is good for leveling the playing field. If Facebook, X, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, etc. are banned/blocked in the PRC, the US should reciprocally return the favor.
The playing field is already level. If an American company makes a social media app and wants to offer it in the US and in China, and a Chinese company makes a social media app and wants to offer it in the US and China, and those two social media apps are essentially identical they will either both be allowed in China or both be banned/blocked in China. Same in the US: they will both be allowed or both be prohibited.
China requires all social media apps there to implement government directed censorship and to help ID people who post things on forbidden topics. That's not a nice playing field to play on, but it is a level one because it does apply regardless of app origin.
... creating a massive pressure for sideloading and alternative/non-official app-stores. Don't for a minute think that those millions of people who currently enjoy that platform will suddently want to stop. Necessity is the mother of invention.
(No, personally I don't use TikTok, YouTube or any other cat video sites. I'm not in that demographic)
I just want to point out that there have been stop and start efforts to regulate tiktok for years. Also this exact bill (or verisons of it) has/have been kicked around the hill for at least 2 months so its not like it came out of nowhere.
The loss of data from TikTok would be chilling. It's pushing the world forward at the fastest pace in tech and education, also politics and everything else hence the bill.
But the next app covered by the bill that would come to mind as the article mentions is Telegram.
Here it's not changing US politics but allows us to watch others politics. We are weakening our power by weakening our citizens.
Like restricting 5G we are at war with ourselves doing Chinas work for them.
I vouched for this post because it talks about the Telegram issue and the more general idea of the role of citizen open source intellegence gathering which I think is an interesting and relevant topic.
The author raises some good points that, I think, are ultimately moot. Most concerns hinge on either the president using this power maliciously or Bytedance not selling Tiktok. The president already has a lot of scary power to wield if they use it maliciously, and our institutions tend to do a good job keeping this in check. What happens if Bytedance chooses not to sell? That will be an interesting world, but not one I'm sure needs to be prepared for.
It's impossible to debate TikTok while people still are not on the same page about the fundamentals which makes this an unusual company that's not comparable to other social networks:
1) TikTok is indirectly owned and therefore controlled by Chinese Communist party.
2) Given the footprint and influence that TikTok has in the US, the platform has the ability to editorially control what people see and therefore influence perceptions of things such as elections and other hot button issues.
3) The widespread installation of an app indirectly controlled by the CCP creates fundamental risk. Eg a number of popular TikTok influencers were actually members of the armed forces who were recording videos in their residences on military properties. Gps and potentially camera access provides information such as troop movements and troop readiness to a potential adversary. At a wider scale, there are similar risks with mass location information of members of the public.
The reality is that US companies are not leaned on by the US government for this kind of information about foreign users.
Until we acknowledge that this is not a normal situation, it seems moot to debate TikTok under normal trade custom and practice.
I've never used tiktok, I've never created an account and I've certainly never installed the app.
I was a senior product manager at Uber for a number of years where I witnessed both the encroachment of the Chinese government into our operations and also the significant responsibility of having a GPS enabled app installed on a vast majority of the populations phones while holding all sorts of sensitive demographic information such as the places you visit, your social graph via your contact address book, etc.
>1) TikTok is indirectly owned and therefore controlled by Chinese Communist party.
Patently false. It's owned by a few Chinese nationals and a few foreign nationals, in roughly a 50-50 ratio.
>2) Given the footprint and influence that TikTok has in the US, the platform has the ability to editorially control what people see and therefore influence perceptions of things such as elections and other hot button issues.
Like CNN, Fox News, NYT, WaPo, BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, South China Morning Post?
>3) The widespread installation of an app indirectly controlled by the CCP creates fundamental risk. Eg a number of popular TikTok influencers were actually members of the armed forces who were recording videos in their residences on military properties. Gps and potentially camera access provides information such as troop movements and troop readiness to a potential adversary. At a wider scale, there are similar risks with mass location information of members of the public.
That's an OPSEC discipline issue. Active duty personnel shouldn't be posting videos of themselves on any social media app.
>The reality is that US companies are not leaned on by the US government for this kind of information about foreign users.
Snowden, Assange, the NSA, Five Eyes and various other very real things would like to have a word with you.
38 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 81.4 ms ] threadIs the US chinaphobic or something? Because they have a good relationship in terms of trade. I'm always reminded of the irony of 'Boycott China' T-Shirts being manufactured in China. As long as the US is the buyer, there's no beef.
Well, china makes many threats to invade our allies, like Taiwan. (Officially declared or not. We give them weapons)
China is quite literally on a list of military enemies.
Yes, it is reasonably to be fearful of countries that are likely going to go to war with your allies. Just like it is reasonable for the government of ukraine to be afraid of the invading russian army.
Our cold war relationship with china could change in the future. They are going to have to make a lot of changes first, such as swearing off invading our allied country taiwan.
But, until that happens, china is right now on the path to actual war with the US in around 5 years.
Of course it would be silly to sell them Aegis missile systems if we really believed that. But that's our official position.
> US Upgrades Taiwan Weapons Package With Newer Patriot Missiles
Not an ally though.
Yes, it's silly.
The dictionary definition is irrelevant to my point, because I wasn't using your definition of the word ally.
So my original point stands.
I don’t understand all the constitutional hurdles. However, we know that Russia has heavily invested in disinformation and destabilization for decades. We can and should expect the same from China.
352-65, that's what our congress thinks of free speech. Who's next after we set the precedent?
There's some language that attempts to limit the bill to social media apps, but any multiplayer game would easily pass those tests.
There's no "unless they're Chinese" clause in the first amendment.
That aside, we're not forcing Tiktok to shut down, just forcing them to find a new owner. We're not stopping anyone from posting online, nor are we stopping anyone from posting on tiktok. If anything, this will be good for speech on tiktok, surfacing topics that were banned or deboosted by a company that has to follow the CCP rules.
In the 2000s it was the arabs, in the 90s it was the Japanese, in the 80s it was the Russians. What would it look like if we had accumulated laws inhibiting speech from each group? We'd practically have a great firewall by now.
If we want to compete, then we need to do that. Investment not protection is the path forward. Protectionist ideas dont save any one, they just let shitty or inferior products flourish.
Our own social media platforms have been doing a perfectly good job of spreading disinformation. And now were building ML systems to accelerate someone's agenda.
You beat tiktok by building what's next and watching it fade like every other platform before it.
China requires all social media apps there to implement government directed censorship and to help ID people who post things on forbidden topics. That's not a nice playing field to play on, but it is a level one because it does apply regardless of app origin.
... creating a massive pressure for sideloading and alternative/non-official app-stores. Don't for a minute think that those millions of people who currently enjoy that platform will suddently want to stop. Necessity is the mother of invention.
(No, personally I don't use TikTok, YouTube or any other cat video sites. I'm not in that demographic)
But the next app covered by the bill that would come to mind as the article mentions is Telegram.
Here it's not changing US politics but allows us to watch others politics. We are weakening our power by weakening our citizens.
Like restricting 5G we are at war with ourselves doing Chinas work for them.
1) TikTok is indirectly owned and therefore controlled by Chinese Communist party.
2) Given the footprint and influence that TikTok has in the US, the platform has the ability to editorially control what people see and therefore influence perceptions of things such as elections and other hot button issues.
3) The widespread installation of an app indirectly controlled by the CCP creates fundamental risk. Eg a number of popular TikTok influencers were actually members of the armed forces who were recording videos in their residences on military properties. Gps and potentially camera access provides information such as troop movements and troop readiness to a potential adversary. At a wider scale, there are similar risks with mass location information of members of the public.
The reality is that US companies are not leaned on by the US government for this kind of information about foreign users.
Until we acknowledge that this is not a normal situation, it seems moot to debate TikTok under normal trade custom and practice.
I've never used tiktok, I've never created an account and I've certainly never installed the app.
I was a senior product manager at Uber for a number of years where I witnessed both the encroachment of the Chinese government into our operations and also the significant responsibility of having a GPS enabled app installed on a vast majority of the populations phones while holding all sorts of sensitive demographic information such as the places you visit, your social graph via your contact address book, etc.
Patently false. It's owned by a few Chinese nationals and a few foreign nationals, in roughly a 50-50 ratio.
>2) Given the footprint and influence that TikTok has in the US, the platform has the ability to editorially control what people see and therefore influence perceptions of things such as elections and other hot button issues.
Like CNN, Fox News, NYT, WaPo, BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, South China Morning Post?
>3) The widespread installation of an app indirectly controlled by the CCP creates fundamental risk. Eg a number of popular TikTok influencers were actually members of the armed forces who were recording videos in their residences on military properties. Gps and potentially camera access provides information such as troop movements and troop readiness to a potential adversary. At a wider scale, there are similar risks with mass location information of members of the public.
That's an OPSEC discipline issue. Active duty personnel shouldn't be posting videos of themselves on any social media app.
>The reality is that US companies are not leaned on by the US government for this kind of information about foreign users.
Snowden, Assange, the NSA, Five Eyes and various other very real things would like to have a word with you.