Whether or not one believes it to be either warranted or sound, this is a ultimately a national security concern not an economic one.
Many people see much hotter conflict with China on the horizon and TikTok in its current form presents a greater risk of letting an adversary manipulate messaging during that conflict than its major competitors do.
That's a strategic threat. Fair and constructive debate can be had as to whether banning it aligns with free speech ideology, whether a conflict is really coming, whether TikTok is really a vector for adversarial manipulation, etc -- but when you don't engage with the apparent and rather straightforward rationale for a ban, you just inject chaos into the discussion and complicate the work of those who might make legitimate arguments against it.
What’s the reason the US insists to own this company?
I can imagine they want to control the narrative with the mentioned algorithm. But are they afraid of it that much that they would ban it if they can’t get it? I mean 170 million Americans in the young demographic are quite important.
They are concerned that China will weaponize the algorithm to promote anti-Taiwan, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel, pro-China narratives, and other socially divisive content (and other future issues)
And there's nothing wrong with any of that. Freedom of speech exists to protect offensive, controversial and heterodox speech, not just speech approved by the CIA, moderators and corporate sponsors. I don't know what the CCP could tell America's impressionable youths that's worse than the torrent of capitalist mind-control, propaganda, hate speech and psychosis they're already being flooded with.
Ah, so just like when the U.S. didn’t like the Soviets pointing out they were an apartheid state during the Civil Rights era. Truly a winning strategy!
Why would we allow a hostile foreign power with whom we may be at war in a few years to have total control over a major part of the information diet of millions of Americans? The Soviets wouldn't have been allowed to own NBC in the Cold War, and China shouldn't be allowed to own the modern-day equivalent.
The US won't own the company. Some non-Chinese private corporation will. The government won't be able to control the narrative on the app. If you disagree with that, just think about what would happen if Fox bought it: would a Democratic administration be able to have any influence whatsoever on the algorithm? No, of course not. It would be run by American citizens who are protected by the First Amendment.
(Also, I don't think it even has to be owned by an American company, just not a Chinese one.)
Hey, they're the ones who keep talking about invading Taiwan. Authoritarian regimes tend to be surprisingly honest about their intentions. Believe them when they tell you what they're going to do.
They’re the ones who have been stoking it for decades. Stealing trade secrets, forcing Chinese ownership of operations on companies to continue operating in China or they’d be forced to sell/shutdown and a host of other documented economic policies that are far more damaging than this to foreign companies in China.
Honestly it’s shocking the US looked the other way for so long
The possibility of war between the US and China within our lifetime is a known and all-to-realistic possibility, which has been public knowledge for a number of years.
I don't agree that acknowledging that in any way stokes the flames of war. Having to tip-toe around the fact would be severely detrimental to the quality of discussion on HN, though.
China doesn’t have total control, they have 20%. And they’ve indicated they are completely unwilling to sell that 20%. And given how small the US install base is compared to the rest of the world, it’s not an unreasonable stance to take.
As long as the leadership of Bytedance is in China, the CCP will always have the power to do whatever they want. And come on, their objections have nothing to do with the economics of a sale.
The head office - leadership - is in Singapore, not China. Bytedance does have an office in China, but they also have one in the US (and most other countries they operate in).
That's not correct. Bytedance is headquartered in Beijing.[1] TikTok Ltd. has two HQs in Singapore and Los Angeles, but Bytedance is still the parent company. [2]
True, but I don’t think it will matter. China is likely to take an ideological stance, just like the US is. It’s going to hurt the US more than China, especially with how close to the elections the ban will occur.
Any significant company in China has secret police involved in managing it. Why would you ever want to let them influence public debate in the US? At least make them work for it.
I think the idea is that a foreign-owned major media company might be directed by that foreign government to work against national interests. Which idea is not so far-fetched.
So if TikTok is forced to be sold to American conglomerate, which company is likely to take over?
Google? Great, an even larger company gets free data
Microsoft? Yuck. Pass.
Apple? Probably not a good idea to lock it behind the Apple Wall. It might have worked for Instagram in 2009-2010, but the ecosystem has lost its desire.
Twitter? Doubt this company has enough capital left to absorb the ecosystem of TT. Not even sure if there’s engineering talent left to absorb it, let alone perform the transition.
Two different issues. None of those will be great for privacy, but they’d likely be better for national security than funneling all that data straight to the CCP.
Congress sadly DNGAF about our privacy rights, but they are rightfully concerned about espionage and psyops.
This is correct. People like to conflate the privacy concerns about American social media with the national security concerns about TikTok, but they really are different things. Yes, privacy will still be a problem, but a) no more than it is with any other social media platform, and b) at least the incentives will be transparent. Publicly traded companies want to generate a return for their investors, which they do by focusing on growth and profit, to varying degrees. So it's pretty easy to understand that everything they do is going to ultimately be to the benefit of their bottom line. And their leadership, shareholders, and operations are subject to American laws.
With a Chinese-owned company, their incentives are to do what's best for the CCP. In the short term, maybe that's making some money and allowing American Zoomers to work themselves into a frenzy over Gaza, but it may also be interfering in our elections, undermining support for NATO and Taiwan, pushing pro-CCP narratives, etc.
Why would it be to a conglomerate? It’s more likely that existing US investors raise extra money to just buy it and run it locally. Existing antitrust environment would make it extremely unlikely an existing consumer tech co will be allowed to buy it and non-consumer wouldn’t make sense.
” In 2020, India imposed a ban on TikTok and dozens of other Chinese apps, including the messaging app WeChat, over privacy and security concerns. The ban came shortly after a clash between Indian and Chinese troops at a disputed Himalayan border killed 20 Indian soldiers and injured dozens.
The companies were given a chance to respond to questions on privacy and security requirements but the ban was made permanent in January 2021.”
That's literally just all the population of India, an autocratic state where they turn off Internet for the entire population when kids take tests to curb cheating. We don't want to be a country like that.
Yes the chancellor of Germany just got his TikTok account a couple of days ago and they said that they are using a separat phone without any sensible information and access for it.
It's two different sets of creators -> two content pools. Also, there are many, many users outside of US or China, with their own regional content pools.
ByteDance exercises a LOT of editorial control over what gets promoted in the stream, though. If TikTok pushed educational videos on users in the US, you'd see everyone clamoring to be Steve Mould.
How is this different from the past where people wanted to be actors on TV and/or movies?
When I was growing up I remember some said they wanted to be Barbie, or GI Joe.
Cultural influence will always be a “thing” as it were. Doesn’t mean it stays a primarily thing or wha t have you. I don’t think it says anything meaningful about someone’s future per se
My point isn't about the career choice. My point is many parents, and probably many more here on HN, may think they can avoid TikToks influence because they don't use it. However it's moot since their peers will have influence, and it starts as young as 1st grade.
It seems as if the regulations have just been weakened over the years, and they're of course nonexistent with streaming and cable. Maybe that should change. Tiktok is just one of the starker examples of a company that COULD be using its algorithmic power for good and choosing to use it for greed, the well-being of users be damned.
I saw a video of a girl with pushed up boobs, and then a video celebrating april 28 1924, the birth of the communist party. About what I'd expect, they certainly have lots of control by the communist party since I doubt such a video would be popular naturally, the push up girl is more what you expect from organic content so there is a mix.
How many young people that care enough about TikTok to hate politicians for this law are actually voting? Half of them are under 18. Most of the other half have never showed up to vote in their lives.
Whelp, there goes TikTok (unless the first amendment challenges succeed, which there is precedent for (thanks, Montana)), as China has already clearly indicated they are unwilling to sell their 20% share.
Nothing quite like congress ignoring their 170 million plus constituents (aka a majority of citizens) and 30k+ businesses, eh? Though, I can’t pretend that this is the first time.
It's time we stopped pretending markets are the best way to solve any societal problem. The Chinese sure as hell don't care about letting Meta/Twitter/Google etc. operating in their country; why should we let them have a cyber beach head in ours?
Turnabout is fair play and free markets are not necessarily safe markets.
Bytedance has even admitted to spying on journalists.
A fact which they previously lied about:
'ByteDance and TikTok had initially issued categorical denials of the allegations when they were first reported. The company claimed it “could not monitor US users in the way the article suggested”, and added that TikTok had never been used to “target” any “members of the US government, activists, public figures or journalists”. Those claims are now acknowledged to be false.'
They already spied on US journalists, lied about it, and now you are claiming that things are all fine? Yeah no. Thats a threat that needs to be permanently eliminated.
This shouldn’t be controversial to pass. TikTok has (allegedly) shared US customer data overseas. And they’re effectively controlled by an adversarial state. And that state doesn’t reciprocate by letting US companies freely operate social media services there. So ban it. I don’t even think the divestment option matters - how can we trust that it actually results in a separation from China or that these privacy violating practices stop?
> TikTok has (allegedly) shared US customer data overseas.
When discussing a law let's not discuss alleged things, be precise and talk about facts, was it done or not?
> And they’re effectively controlled by an adversarial state.
Do you think everything in this world should be controlled by the USA?
> And that state doesn’t reciprocate by letting US companies freely operate social media services there. So ban it.
Can you please remind me the USA is a democracy? if it is a democracy, then it should not compare itself to other forms of governments and how they operate. Every country has its laws, companies should abide by them, and the USA as far as I am aware was a proponent of free trade, capitalism and democracy
TikTok managers overseeing the protection of U.S. data "sometimes instruct workers to share data with colleagues in other parts of the company and with ByteDance workers without going through official channels, according to current and former employees and internal documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal."
> When discussing a law let's not discuss alleged things, be precise and talk about facts, was it done or not?
You know full well that it’s not possible to monitor or examine what these companies do, because we don’t have total transparency.
> So much bias in your comment.
The bias isn’t with me, but with you. Obviously you could have taken one second to do a search and find numerous articles on this, such as this one, where TikTok ADMITTED to storing US data in China, which means they lied under oath. That’s why a divestment is not enough to trust them:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/06/21/tikt...
> Do you think everything in this world should be controlled by the USA?
I think the CCP is a corrupt authoritarian regime that used violent revolution and force to come into power and stay there. Most people don’t trust such regimes to control anything. It’s not about the US, or even Chinese people, but about Chinese leadership.
> Every country has its laws, companies should abide by them, and the USA as far as I am aware was a proponent of free trade, capitalism and democracy
I’m not sure what point you’re making. Banning TikTok worldwide would be consistent with all three.
It is perfectly okay to be biased against China, they are biased against my rights as a human.
They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they don’t give those who “disappear” for speaking out against their government the benefit of the doubt either.
> > And they’re effectively controlled by an adversarial state.
> Do you think everything in this world should be controlled by the USA?
I think that things that pump directly into the minds of the American public should not be controlled by adversaries of America. That is different from what you said, and the difference matters.
And I don't understand why this isn't expressed a simple quid pro quo - China has banned US services (FB etc) for years - turnabout is fair play. Or in other words, you can make money by making our people crazy and stupid when we can make yours dumb.
> And I don't understand why this isn't expressed a simple quid pro quo
Because the current situation is already quid pro quo. The rule now is US companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules in China that Chinese companies have to obey in China, and Chinese companies can operate in the US if they obey the same rules in the US that US companies have to obey.
FB is not in China because China requires social media companies to turn over the identities of posters that post things the Chinese government does not like. FB does not want to do that and so FB is not allowed in China.
Everything that people speculate that TikTok might do or be used for has already happened and continues to happen on Facebook. The quid pro quo approach would be for the US to regulate or ban those things on all social media apps in that operate in the US.
> The rule now is US companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules in China that Chinese companies have to obey in China, and Chinese companies can operate in the US if they obey the same rules in the US that US companies have to obey.
China practices the maxim of "we don't have a rule book, but don't do anything that makes us angry" to enforce a maximum of self censorship on its operators. Heck, Chinese services are actually required to break rules in ways that would violate America's FCPA laws (it is impossible to operate in China and not break either American or Chinese laws).
> FB is not in China because China requires social media companies to turn over the identities of posters that post things the Chinese government does not like.
FB would probably setup a JV in a heart beat if the Chinese government would let them (letting the JV handle the data and interaction with Chinese regulators, and keeping it completely separated from Facebook in the rest of the world). The issue is that China wants to know the identities of people outside of China, like in Taiwan or Hong Kong, and Facebook would be breaking Chinese law not revealing them, but would be breaking other country laws revealing them. Again, it is simply impossible for Facebook to operate in China without breaking either Chinese or other country laws. So they pick the rest of the world.
I think ByteDance actually did the right thing with TikTok. It would be impossible to have a service that legally works both in China and outside of China, because Chinese rules would require breaking other country rules, so they did two services instead. But unfortunately, I guess the Americans don't think they are organizationally separate enough, and that the Chinese government can still exert pressure on ByteDance to reveal TikTok data, not just Douyin data.
> Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
> First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
TikTok has (allegedly) shared US customer data overseas.
They’re hardly unique to that end, no? I’m with you that this is dumb but mostly because I don’t see ByteDance holding even half its value for another decade.
Oh man the "sell Tiktok" thing is just pure corporate welfare for whatever US-based BigCo buys Tiktok. Spoiler alert, it will be one of the BigCo's that enthusiastically lobbied for this bill. Regulatory capture at its finest, in service of a social media tri-opoly.
Microsoft and Google must be absolutely salivating right now, imagine being able to buy your way into operating a major social network in 2024, and not only do the Feds not come after you for antitrust, they actually mandate the sale and greenlight it in advance!
In this instance someone will gain something short term, I readily acknowledge.
That said, how is this different from Chinas long standing economic policies that have effectively banned many western companies from doing business there and longstanding practices of stealing trade secrets[0][1][2]?
Or how about forcing companies to transfer technology and business operations to local Chinese firms[3] under threat of being banned in the Chinese market?
Needing to win a bidding war for TikTok is very different from Washington's confiscating TikTok and giving it to one of its corporate friends. The winner of the bidding war might never get enough money out of TikTok to offset what it paid for TikTok. The seller (ByteDance) is not stupid, and anyone who want to bid can bid.
I am surprised there is such resistance here to be honest. The Chinese government has had trade restrictions for decades - including forced disclosures and forced local ownership for investing firms, forced disclosure of tech, been caught hacking into systems and stealing IP etc. - as well as banning multiple western companies apps under their own excuses without substantive evidence.
Why should the US or any other trade partner with China therefore keep such a lopsided relationship? Seems like the US has a case here IMO, given all this history and practice. We should have been tougher on this years ago
> I am surprised there is such resistance here to be honest.
You’ll probably not be surprised to find out there’s a lot of anti-US sentiment courtesy of Chinese, Russian and Iranian propaganda.
Plenty of younger folks fall for it, same stuff in the 70s and 80s on college campuses with supposedly well educated people talking about how the Soviet Union had higher standards of living than the US, and the “tyranny” was all just American propaganda.
I read most of the challenges to this ban as either explicitly championing US-colored ideals of free markets and free speech or simple personal frustration because people don't want to lose the experience of the app.
I'd expect some of the messaging gets amplified and shaped by adversarial parties, but the framing is rarely/never aligned with "anti-US" rhetoric on this topic.
Your concern sounds like a different thing than what applies to this discussion.
> the framing is rarely/never aligned with "anti-US" rhetoric on this topic.
It’s attempting to push the narrative that TikTok is somehow the exception and is being treated unfairly, and that this is the big bad USA violating constitutional rights when this is just exactly how businesses with adversarial governments are treated in America. We already know Chinese controlled social media bots are amplifying to far right and far left extremists who act as useful idiots to spread this bait.
The US government regularly intervenes in the free market, especially when national security is involved. It’s no different than banning Huawei from critical infrastructure, but allowing Nokia to stick around. Look at real estate, automotive industry, hell even construction has similar restrictions.
My concern is strictly national security, it’s my own opinion and I definitely could be wrong, but given what I’ve seen that’s public, there’s not really a downside here. Someone will buy TikTok, and they will make a shit load of money. People will call it a conspiracy, but at the end of the day the idea of China running a social media platform just does not seem very logical no matter how you spin it.
Protectionist trade policy is nothing new, and in the big picture that’s what this really is.
The reason an entity chooses to behave in an ethical or moral fashion is because they believe it's the right or just way to behave, and not what happens to be the most expedient behavior in some arbitrary moment of time. And principles can cost you in the short-term, but tend to reap tremendous dividends in the long-run. One of those dividends is soft power. Hearing a relatively stoic adult Russian chess grandmaster start to choke up a bit when describing the joy he felt (as a grown man no less) when the USSR collapsed and 'Donald Duck came to Russia' was something quite unforgettable for me. As he described it, literally everybody was picking up Donald Duck stuff - as much as a symbol of the end of one era, as the beginning of another.
But now? In my lifetime it feels like America's soft power has gone from the sort that could make grown men cry with joy, to basically nonexistent. And I think a big part of it is that we are no longer seen as behaving in a principled fashion. We just do whatever is convenient at the moment and then wrap it in some grandstanding and a whole lot of propaganda. Even with this silly event, I think there's an interesting nuance. The government was so concerned about the tremendous national security threat of TikTok that, just 2 months, ago Biden decided to start his very own TikTok account. [1] It went like you'd expect. But imagine it didn't. Imagine he actually managed to gain some traction. Would he, today, still be looking to sign off on a ban of it?
> The government was so concerned about the tremendous national security threat of TikTok that, just 2 months, ago Biden decided to start his very own TikTok account.
CCTV (Chinese central TV) has a Twitter/X/Youtube accounts even though it is banned in China. Heck, Tiktok itself is banned in China but the Chinese government doesn't mind using it to push its messages abroad. This isn't really weird from a Chinese perspective anyways.
No it definitely isn't weird from a Chinese perspective, because they are a dictatorship. It's literally the first article of their constitution [1] : "The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited."
China bans whatever they feel like for whatever reason they want. Another example was banning social media imagery or references to Winnie the Pooh on social media because of it being used to mock Xi Jinping in a domain they couldn't directly control otherwise. [2] Of course they were happy to still allow it in domains where they could control the messaging and use, like in books or parks. And this is, of course, one of the many reasons Chinese society isn't particularly well regarded. And this is the exact route we're going down, with the exact same outcomes.
It should not be possible to “ban” software. I am appalled that the government, in collusion with OS vendors, can tell me what software I’m allowed to run on my personal devices.
In an ideal world, TikTok would be prevented from doing business in the US, but everyone would continue to download the TikTok client and act like nothing happened. Just like with Napster and BitTorrent.
It definitely is possible to "ban" software in China. Just block the network addresses needed to run the app. Perhaps the USA could license technology from China to do it? But that would be too ironic.
Actually, without something like a GFW, the USA can't do more than "ban" app stores from carrying the app in the US market, they can't even really prevent you from switching markets and using an overseas credit card. But they can definitely ban American based tiktokers from getting paid, or American based advertisers from using the platform commercially, which will probably hurt more than anything.
I think you’re missing the point that these programs are now indescribably powerful for swaying social sentiment. They can be made into weapons of mass disruption. Of course you and I want the internet to be completely open, but the world has changed drastically since the early days and bad actors have created software that gives them huge amounts of power. It’s utterly irresponsible not to regulate such a thing.
That's not what's happening, though. We are banning one app because of its origin country, not because of any principled reasoning on the app's contents.
If for some reason TikTok actually disappears, Meta's apps are still there and there will be plenty of money flowing into a new competitor with similar UX.
Feels like both in the US and Europe, these "moderate" "liberal" "democrats" have lost all respect for our supposed freedoms.
Makes me wonder whether all that posturing about the supposed moral superiority of the western world had any solid foundations or not.
Does China have the freedom to operate spyware and propaganda outlets worldwide? Is that articulated in some statement of universal human rights I missed?
Not exactly the same. Lamont would be more like banning propaganda on all social media. Which would obviously not fly. Requiring certain ownership of media is actually already the law for radio and TV so it seems to be permissible.
But radio and TV are not the Internet. We don't and should never require local ownership of all important Internet platforms. That would crush the very globalism the Internet has been built up for so many years to sustain
This doesn’t really seem germane to what is going on here though. An individual subscribing to mail is quite a bit different to Chinese spyware tracking and propagandizing citizens (without their knowledge or consent).
Well, let's just put the tiger on the table and yell at it. TikTok is used as a surveillance tool, and both Europe and the US would rather continue to monopolize that power through FIVE-EYES. It's less about "moral superiority" (a far-foregone possibility, if you've been paying attention) and more about attritional warfare on privacy.
> Well, let's just put the tiger on the table and yell at it
Gladly. I feel like my basic human rights as a citizen of a first world county are being impinged by Israel and their far-right regime. And this is just one other example of that. At this point my real fear of Israel far surpasses any fear I have of any other geopolitical adversary nation.
I have nothing to do with Israel or the middle east and yet this country has this insane influence in my country as it does in every other western country.
How did this happen and how can we win our democracy back? Since when does Israel get to have a say in the public and private goings of other countries?
While I don't think you're neccesarily wrong to fear NSO Group's capabilities, you are absolutely missing the forest for the trees if you think the United States does not have surveillance far in excess of what Israel could hope to achieve. Israel has to break into your iPhone, whereas MI6 and the CIA own it before you walk out the Verizon store.
How naive are you? Our enemy has deployed a potential weapon in our country and over 100 million people in the US are being influenced by it. Do you not grasp the potential consequences of this? Does your thinking only go as deep as “but muh freedoms”?
Implying the United States government will make exceptions and bend over backwards for a Pro-Israel lobbying firm is quite literally spreading false information and antisemitism, actually.
Criticism of Israel isn’t antisemetic, but lying about basic facts because you dislike a particular group of people is antisemitism.
You’re also just straight up lying about congressional record as well. Congress votes against AIPAC interests regularly. Go ahead and cite the claim that the US government does everything AIPAC wants, but you’d just be wasting your time looking. Maybe your deep state goons will help you out here.
You are just lying blatantly and openly because you dislike the idea of a Jewish state. All you’re doing is spreading hate and misinformation.
That’s not what your source says at all, it says they’ve spent less than 999,999 USD. A group of PACs that agree with AIPAC is PLANNING to spend 100m over SEVERAL YEARS. But they have not, and they don’t have anything to do with each other.
Again, you are just a blatant liar. I would highly recommend seeking help from a medical professional if you are deluding yourself this much. You can’t even read english correctly without twisting it into something that frames jews.
Most of the opposition I hear to a TikTok ban/divestment boils down to:
1. If TikTok is a problem, so are the other social media platforms
2. The Chinese government can just buy data from a data broker if the ban goes through
3. Such a ban is purely made of xenophobia
4. There’s no evidence that TikTok is being used to influence its users
5. Such a ban runs afoul of the 1st amendment
To this, I say:
1. I agree that the other platforms are a problem and we need comprehensive privacy legislation to address that. Could action against TikTok be better framed as a first step focused on low hanging fruit?
2. I think too many people focus on data gathering in the abstract without considering the richness of data that is only available in 1st party form, i.e. granular data about the kinds of content and ideas that users are interested in and susceptible to. This may exist in some forms from data brokers, but 1st party access enables something much more powerful.
3. I do think some people are primarily concerned because of xenophobia, but this has little bearing on the potentially real underlying issues.
4. TikTok directly asking users to contact their lawmakers was an overt act that shows the platform is capable of spurring on political action by its users. A CCP-controlled platform that can successfully get people to call their congresspeople should make us pause.
5. I am not a lawyer, but this seems like a scenario where commerce is regulated, not speech. I think there is a lot of confusion about what constitutes a true first amendment issue, and in the absence of TikTok, there are a myriad of ways to continue expressing freely.
This is a hard issue to discuss outside of a community like HN because almost all discussions are made up of whataboutism or hardline opinions aligned to 1-5. I truly don’t know what the right answer is, but I do think TikTok should worry us. I think other platforms should worry us too. We already know how harmful Facebook has been to the political process, and arguably social media is still in its infancy compared to whatever is yet to come.
> Could action against TikTok be better framed as a first step focused on low hanging fruit?
Absolutely no, because if you are making first steps, you need generalize approach and not selectively target companies
> TikTok directly asking users to contact their lawmakers was an overt act that shows the platform is capable of spurring on political action by its users.
What's wrong with this exactly? You have rights to call your congress representatives when you need them, it is normal and expected in functioning democracy, why this is an exception?
> > TikTok directly asking users to contact their lawmakers was an overt act that shows the platform is capable of spurring on political action by its users.
> What's wrong with this exactly? You have rights to call your congress representatives when you need them, it is normal and expected in functioning democracy, why this is an exception?
There may not be anything inherently wrong with political action, but when one of the concerns is that the CCP can use TikTok to influence Americans' political behavior, that whole episode proved exactly why everyone believes it. What happens if they start pushing overtly anti-NATO and anti-Taiwan messages instead?
> Absolutely no, because if you are making first steps, you need generalize approach and not selectively target companies
This is an engineering mindset. I’m not aware of any other social media platform that is currently in TikTok’s position wrt affiliation with a geopolitical adversary. I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t also be a comprehensive solution, but right now, it seems clear that TikTok stands alone in terms of why it’s being targeted.
> What's wrong with this exactly? You have rights to call your congress representatives when you need them, it is normal and expected in functioning democracy, why this is an exception?
This isn’t about our rights to call our congresspeople. Of course everyone calling has that right.
At issue is the source of that influence. Outside of the TikTok conversation, such influence is “foreign interference”, “election meddling”, etc. The concern boils down to: are we comfortable with a major foreign government holding the keys to one of the biggest megaphones in existence?
It’s a brilliant play, really. “Direct” interference in the form of targeted advertising and misinformation is something most users find themselves hostile towards. But a social media app that everyone loves is the perfect Trojan horse and in a hypothetical situation where influence was applied in an effort to achieved darker goals, the CCP’s biggest defenders will be their targets. Hypothetically.
Can someone link to the text to the bill? I don't care about TikTok - but this bill is likely to have such wider effects than just TikTok. It may affect the ability of Americans to access many foreign services.
The sell option makes no sense. How would it work that TikTok is owned by the US only within the US but by China for the rest of the world? Sure the US-based entity of ByteDance could be sold to a US-based company but couldn't they just relocate all digital-related assets and operations (databases, app servers, developers, etc) outside of the USA, e.g. Canada or Mexico? They should have just banned the whole thing.
Anyway, the US should be prepared to ban or regulate other platforms, because all the propaganda that would have come out of TikTok will instead appear in Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, etc. Social media really is the worst invention of our time and honestly I'd be happy to see those platforms go.
Mexico has about half as many TikTok users as the US. I would think that ByteDance would continue that operation, as well as other major user populations in Indonesia, Brazil, etc.
If Bytedance tried to dodge it then the app stores (which are all run by American companies) wouldn't be allowed to list the TikTok app and no US company would be allowed to host the website. [1]
So, yes, the website would still work when hosted outside of the US and people could sideload the app but in general it would kill TikTok.
It isn't one company. It's a bill granting the government tremendous power to ban near arbitrary content from 'foreign adversaries.' TikTok will be the first, but not the last. You can read the bill here. [1] Similarly, the Great Firewall of China did not start with a bill to defacto ban all foreign content. It started with this paragraph:
---
Individuals are prohibited from using the Internet to: harm national security; disclose state secrets; or injure the interests of the state or society. Users are prohibited from using the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit information that incites resistance to the PRC Constitution, laws, or administrative regulations; promoting the overthrow of the government or socialist system; undermining national unification; distorting the truth, spreading rumors, or destroying social order; or providing sexually suggestive material or encouraging gambling, violence, or murder. Users are prohibited from engaging in activities that harm the security of computer information networks and from using networks or changing network resources without prior approval.
Fitting and ironic that it's shoved in with the fund Israel and Ukraine bill. Which is the real reason that the government gives a single shit about controlling TikTok in the first place. (Read what the ADL has posted about TikTok and that point becomes extremely clear, the US government does not give a shit about the safety and security of ITS citizens, only questionable foreign policy)
Why does the US bend over for one of the worst allies we've ever had. Who takes our money and constantly, publicly spits in our face, has their leaders come to our country to campaign against our own elected leaders, throws huge public hissy fits when we decide to sanction a division of their army notorious for rapes and brutal killings, never listens to any advice we give them, breaks all our rules, and expects a handout in the end, and uses our own money to buy off our own politicians through a lobbying group?
It seems unlikely that Byte Dance would divest of all of TikTok, since the US users are only about 10% of global TikTok users.
They would more likely either shut down the US operation, support US users from outside the US, or sell the US users to one of the other social media networks.
Others posted great reasons to dislike TikTok. I hear you, but I'll miss it because of how great the recommendations are/were for me. Instagram's recommendation engine is in a lower league in my experience.
It's important to click "not interested" on meme videos for both platforms though. Instagram keeps reverting to meme videos for me (probably because my habits get away from me), but my TikTok account never gives me memes or what I consider low value content.
I wish there was something more like HN, in that it's text-centric, doesn't put my dopamine mechanics into overdrive, but with the content multitude and recommendation accuracy of TikTok. HN is great, but tech stuff isn't the only stuff I care about, and I've not seen good manual moderation scale beyond a frontpage or so.
Read a book. Or watch TV, stream a movie, documentary, an audio book, play a video game. There are plenty of substitutes to media consumption/entertainment, and some are actually good for your mental health.
The Internet is a propaganda machine, and the US and its pesky First Amendment actually allows foreign governments to post whatever propaganda they want on there and for US Citizens to consume it if they choose to.
(Note: There are exceptions for anything the government classifies as "terrorism")
A lot of headwinds that they're going to face with the public is due to tik tok buying their audience's favor.
Their creator program pays a lot of people decent amounts of money and pays an not insignificant amount of people life-changing amounts of money. YouTube can't match it and Instagram isn't even trying.
why is it called propaganda when narrative is pushed by China, Russia, but called out democracy and free speech when same type of propaganda pushed by the US?
It’s not. It’s called propaganda all around. In between is organic content. But it’s irrational to want your own population subjected to an adversary’s propaganda.
196 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 223 ms ] threadMany people see much hotter conflict with China on the horizon and TikTok in its current form presents a greater risk of letting an adversary manipulate messaging during that conflict than its major competitors do.
That's a strategic threat. Fair and constructive debate can be had as to whether banning it aligns with free speech ideology, whether a conflict is really coming, whether TikTok is really a vector for adversarial manipulation, etc -- but when you don't engage with the apparent and rather straightforward rationale for a ban, you just inject chaos into the discussion and complicate the work of those who might make legitimate arguments against it.
I can imagine they want to control the narrative with the mentioned algorithm. But are they afraid of it that much that they would ban it if they can’t get it? I mean 170 million Americans in the young demographic are quite important.
You as an individual are perfectly free to continue discussing anti American ideas if you wish.
The US won't own the company. Some non-Chinese private corporation will. The government won't be able to control the narrative on the app. If you disagree with that, just think about what would happen if Fox bought it: would a Democratic administration be able to have any influence whatsoever on the algorithm? No, of course not. It would be run by American citizens who are protected by the First Amendment.
(Also, I don't think it even has to be owned by an American company, just not a Chinese one.)
I'm flagging this because while I agree China is a hostile power, it's detrimental to stoke the flames of war like this.
Honestly it’s shocking the US looked the other way for so long
I don't agree that acknowledging that in any way stokes the flames of war. Having to tip-toe around the fact would be severely detrimental to the quality of discussion on HN, though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok
US = 10% of users, but 50% of revenue.
>And given how small the US install base is compared to the rest of the world, it’s not an unreasonable stance to take.
Meaning that losing the US customer base wouldn't hurt TikTok too badly.
I said
>US = 10% of users, but 50% of revenue.
You can't now say
>True, but I don’t think it will matter.
You can't have it both ways. Would losing the US market seriously hurt TikTok? Yes, or no?
>China is likely to take an ideological stance, just like the US is.
I don't disagree, but that is orthogonal to your initial claim.
>It’s going to hurt the US more than China, especially with how close to the elections the ban will occur.
If TikTok is banned in the US, as opposed to being sold to some non-Chinese owner, Americans would just move to Instgram Reels and YouTube Shorts.
Google? Great, an even larger company gets free data
Microsoft? Yuck. Pass.
Apple? Probably not a good idea to lock it behind the Apple Wall. It might have worked for Instagram in 2009-2010, but the ecosystem has lost its desire.
Twitter? Doubt this company has enough capital left to absorb the ecosystem of TT. Not even sure if there’s engineering talent left to absorb it, let alone perform the transition.
Congress sadly DNGAF about our privacy rights, but they are rightfully concerned about espionage and psyops.
With a Chinese-owned company, their incentives are to do what's best for the CCP. In the short term, maybe that's making some money and allowing American Zoomers to work themselves into a frenzy over Gaza, but it may also be interfering in our elections, undermining support for NATO and Taiwan, pushing pro-CCP narratives, etc.
I've seen estimates that TikTok would be valued at $250B.
Bytedance (parent company) had $120B revenue in 2023.
” In 2020, India imposed a ban on TikTok and dozens of other Chinese apps, including the messaging app WeChat, over privacy and security concerns. The ban came shortly after a clash between Indian and Chinese troops at a disputed Himalayan border killed 20 Indian soldiers and injured dozens. The companies were given a chance to respond to questions on privacy and security requirements but the ban was made permanent in January 2021.”
That is 1.4 billion people.
Have you been hiding under a rock for the last 20 years?
Governments that are banning Tiktok:
- Taliban in Afghanistan
- Congress in USA
Governments that ban federal employees and military from installing third party apps on secure devices:
- Pretty much all of them
https://mashable.com/article/tiktok-ban-countries
It's also banned for the entire country in Nepal and Somalia. And oh yeah, it also seems to be effectively banned in one more very large country.
China.
That's about 18% of the population of earth.
And if you count the population of China, that's another 1,412,000,000 people. So it's more like 36%...
This was around the time I decided that I didn't care what happened to TikTok.
I have a 1st grader and one day she said she wants to be youtuber when she grows up. She learned this from her peers.
Prior to this answer, she wanted to be a doctor.
I asked her what happened to being a doctor, and she says, she can be both (thank goodness, probably the best answer I can wish for).
When I was growing up I remember some said they wanted to be Barbie, or GI Joe.
Cultural influence will always be a “thing” as it were. Doesn’t mean it stays a primarily thing or wha t have you. I don’t think it says anything meaningful about someone’s future per se
I'm begging of you please let me login.
Douyin, Douyin, Douyin, Douyin,
Even though I'm not a Chinese citizen.
Your algorithm's like TLC,
the cable channel, how it used to be,
serving education, not cheap junk vids.
Just months until Tiktok gets banned.
There'll be now more Bytedance in this land.
To save yourself, just please think of the kids.
As someone who grew up in the edutainment 90s, I'm starting to think that there might actually have been something to the CTA et al. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations_on_children%27s_te... )
It seems as if the regulations have just been weakened over the years, and they're of course nonexistent with streaming and cable. Maybe that should change. Tiktok is just one of the starker examples of a company that COULD be using its algorithmic power for good and choosing to use it for greed, the well-being of users be damned.
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-2020
Nothing quite like congress ignoring their 170 million plus constituents (aka a majority of citizens) and 30k+ businesses, eh? Though, I can’t pretend that this is the first time.
Turnabout is fair play and free markets are not necessarily safe markets.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Instead, its a national security threat that is going to help them kill a lot more people.
Come back when there’s a verified threat that Facebook doesn’t already pose to US citizens.
Or instead of waiting until a world war happens, we eliminate the threat now before it can be wielded and the damage is already done.
China also doesn't own a 20% share of facebook.
But even if you think there are issues with facebook, that is no excuse to ignore tiktok. 1 less threat is still good.
Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by...
Bytedance has even admitted to spying on journalists.
A fact which they previously lied about:
'ByteDance and TikTok had initially issued categorical denials of the allegations when they were first reported. The company claimed it “could not monitor US users in the way the article suggested”, and added that TikTok had never been used to “target” any “members of the US government, activists, public figures or journalists”. Those claims are now acknowledged to be false.'
They already spied on US journalists, lied about it, and now you are claiming that things are all fine? Yeah no. Thats a threat that needs to be permanently eliminated.
> TikTok has (allegedly) shared US customer data overseas.
When discussing a law let's not discuss alleged things, be precise and talk about facts, was it done or not?
> And they’re effectively controlled by an adversarial state.
Do you think everything in this world should be controlled by the USA?
> And that state doesn’t reciprocate by letting US companies freely operate social media services there. So ban it.
Can you please remind me the USA is a democracy? if it is a democracy, then it should not compare itself to other forms of governments and how they operate. Every country has its laws, companies should abide by them, and the USA as far as I am aware was a proponent of free trade, capitalism and democracy
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/tiktok-pledged-to-prot...
You know full well that it’s not possible to monitor or examine what these companies do, because we don’t have total transparency.
> So much bias in your comment.
The bias isn’t with me, but with you. Obviously you could have taken one second to do a search and find numerous articles on this, such as this one, where TikTok ADMITTED to storing US data in China, which means they lied under oath. That’s why a divestment is not enough to trust them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/06/21/tikt...
> Do you think everything in this world should be controlled by the USA?
I think the CCP is a corrupt authoritarian regime that used violent revolution and force to come into power and stay there. Most people don’t trust such regimes to control anything. It’s not about the US, or even Chinese people, but about Chinese leadership.
> Every country has its laws, companies should abide by them, and the USA as far as I am aware was a proponent of free trade, capitalism and democracy
I’m not sure what point you’re making. Banning TikTok worldwide would be consistent with all three.
It is perfectly okay to be biased against China, they are biased against my rights as a human.
They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they don’t give those who “disappear” for speaking out against their government the benefit of the doubt either.
> Do you think everything in this world should be controlled by the USA?
I think that things that pump directly into the minds of the American public should not be controlled by adversaries of America. That is different from what you said, and the difference matters.
Because the current situation is already quid pro quo. The rule now is US companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules in China that Chinese companies have to obey in China, and Chinese companies can operate in the US if they obey the same rules in the US that US companies have to obey.
FB is not in China because China requires social media companies to turn over the identities of posters that post things the Chinese government does not like. FB does not want to do that and so FB is not allowed in China.
Everything that people speculate that TikTok might do or be used for has already happened and continues to happen on Facebook. The quid pro quo approach would be for the US to regulate or ban those things on all social media apps in that operate in the US.
China practices the maxim of "we don't have a rule book, but don't do anything that makes us angry" to enforce a maximum of self censorship on its operators. Heck, Chinese services are actually required to break rules in ways that would violate America's FCPA laws (it is impossible to operate in China and not break either American or Chinese laws).
> FB is not in China because China requires social media companies to turn over the identities of posters that post things the Chinese government does not like.
FB would probably setup a JV in a heart beat if the Chinese government would let them (letting the JV handle the data and interaction with Chinese regulators, and keeping it completely separated from Facebook in the rest of the world). The issue is that China wants to know the identities of people outside of China, like in Taiwan or Hong Kong, and Facebook would be breaking Chinese law not revealing them, but would be breaking other country laws revealing them. Again, it is simply impossible for Facebook to operate in China without breaking either Chinese or other country laws. So they pick the rest of the world.
I think ByteDance actually did the right thing with TikTok. It would be impossible to have a service that legally works both in China and outside of China, because Chinese rules would require breaking other country rules, so they did two services instead. But unfortunately, I guess the Americans don't think they are organizationally separate enough, and that the Chinese government can still exert pressure on ByteDance to reveal TikTok data, not just Douyin data.
No it hasn't.
Facebook isn't sending information on US journalists to our foreign adversaries.
Thats the difference. Helping out a geopolical enemy that very likely could be at war with the US or its allies, is a big deal.
> all social media apps in that operate in the US.
All social media apps of that size are equally not going to be controllable by our foreign adversaries. That is already what the law does.
And Tiktok will be perfectly able to equally follow the law, once they sell to a non foreign adversary.
You forgot to mention that China hacks companies operating in China.
from https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
> Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
> First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Sure, China tries to hack companies. But do they only hack foreign companies or do they also hack domestic companies?
[1] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
They’re hardly unique to that end, no? I’m with you that this is dumb but mostly because I don’t see ByteDance holding even half its value for another decade.
Microsoft and Google must be absolutely salivating right now, imagine being able to buy your way into operating a major social network in 2024, and not only do the Feds not come after you for antitrust, they actually mandate the sale and greenlight it in advance!
That said, how is this different from Chinas long standing economic policies that have effectively banned many western companies from doing business there and longstanding practices of stealing trade secrets[0][1][2]?
Or how about forcing companies to transfer technology and business operations to local Chinese firms[3] under threat of being banned in the Chinese market?
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-s...
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/china-generati...
[3]: https://www.axios.com/2021/12/21/why-us-giants-keep-caving-t...
Why should the US or any other trade partner with China therefore keep such a lopsided relationship? Seems like the US has a case here IMO, given all this history and practice. We should have been tougher on this years ago
You’ll probably not be surprised to find out there’s a lot of anti-US sentiment courtesy of Chinese, Russian and Iranian propaganda.
Plenty of younger folks fall for it, same stuff in the 70s and 80s on college campuses with supposedly well educated people talking about how the Soviet Union had higher standards of living than the US, and the “tyranny” was all just American propaganda.
I read most of the challenges to this ban as either explicitly championing US-colored ideals of free markets and free speech or simple personal frustration because people don't want to lose the experience of the app.
I'd expect some of the messaging gets amplified and shaped by adversarial parties, but the framing is rarely/never aligned with "anti-US" rhetoric on this topic.
Your concern sounds like a different thing than what applies to this discussion.
It’s attempting to push the narrative that TikTok is somehow the exception and is being treated unfairly, and that this is the big bad USA violating constitutional rights when this is just exactly how businesses with adversarial governments are treated in America. We already know Chinese controlled social media bots are amplifying to far right and far left extremists who act as useful idiots to spread this bait.
The US government regularly intervenes in the free market, especially when national security is involved. It’s no different than banning Huawei from critical infrastructure, but allowing Nokia to stick around. Look at real estate, automotive industry, hell even construction has similar restrictions.
My concern is strictly national security, it’s my own opinion and I definitely could be wrong, but given what I’ve seen that’s public, there’s not really a downside here. Someone will buy TikTok, and they will make a shit load of money. People will call it a conspiracy, but at the end of the day the idea of China running a social media platform just does not seem very logical no matter how you spin it.
Protectionist trade policy is nothing new, and in the big picture that’s what this really is.
But now? In my lifetime it feels like America's soft power has gone from the sort that could make grown men cry with joy, to basically nonexistent. And I think a big part of it is that we are no longer seen as behaving in a principled fashion. We just do whatever is convenient at the moment and then wrap it in some grandstanding and a whole lot of propaganda. Even with this silly event, I think there's an interesting nuance. The government was so concerned about the tremendous national security threat of TikTok that, just 2 months, ago Biden decided to start his very own TikTok account. [1] It went like you'd expect. But imagine it didn't. Imagine he actually managed to gain some traction. Would he, today, still be looking to sign off on a ban of it?
[1] - https://www.wired.com/story/joe-biden-tiktok-campaign-commen...
CCTV (Chinese central TV) has a Twitter/X/Youtube accounts even though it is banned in China. Heck, Tiktok itself is banned in China but the Chinese government doesn't mind using it to push its messages abroad. This isn't really weird from a Chinese perspective anyways.
China bans whatever they feel like for whatever reason they want. Another example was banning social media imagery or references to Winnie the Pooh on social media because of it being used to mock Xi Jinping in a domain they couldn't directly control otherwise. [2] Of course they were happy to still allow it in domains where they could control the messaging and use, like in books or parks. And this is, of course, one of the many reasons Chinese society isn't particularly well regarded. And this is the exact route we're going down, with the exact same outcomes.
[1] - http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Winnie-the-Pooh_...
Its clear TikTok has not done the legwork and deployed significant spend on PAC and lobbying.
In an ideal world, TikTok would be prevented from doing business in the US, but everyone would continue to download the TikTok client and act like nothing happened. Just like with Napster and BitTorrent.
Actually, without something like a GFW, the USA can't do more than "ban" app stores from carrying the app in the US market, they can't even really prevent you from switching markets and using an overseas credit card. But they can definitely ban American based tiktokers from getting paid, or American based advertisers from using the platform commercially, which will probably hurt more than anything.
If for some reason TikTok actually disappears, Meta's apps are still there and there will be plenty of money flowing into a new competitor with similar UX.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General#:...
The real irony here perhaps is that the only thing your government has to do to impair your "freedom" is write a strongly-worded letter to your OEM: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/tech/china-apple-whatspp-thre...
Gladly. I feel like my basic human rights as a citizen of a first world county are being impinged by Israel and their far-right regime. And this is just one other example of that. At this point my real fear of Israel far surpasses any fear I have of any other geopolitical adversary nation. I have nothing to do with Israel or the middle east and yet this country has this insane influence in my country as it does in every other western country. How did this happen and how can we win our democracy back? Since when does Israel get to have a say in the public and private goings of other countries?
I think TikTok is crap, I don't have it installed, and I don't even disagree with your concern.
But is that concern enough to overcome the concern about the government controlling the software you can install?
Criticism of Israel isn’t antisemetic, but lying about basic facts because you dislike a particular group of people is antisemitism.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-influen...
You’re also just straight up lying about congressional record as well. Congress votes against AIPAC interests regularly. Go ahead and cite the claim that the US government does everything AIPAC wants, but you’d just be wasting your time looking. Maybe your deep state goons will help you out here.
You are just lying blatantly and openly because you dislike the idea of a Jewish state. All you’re doing is spreading hate and misinformation.
Here's a different source with them and "affiliated PACs" spending 100m in a single election cycle: https://newrepublic.com/post/176959/aipac-spending-target-sq...
Again, you are just a blatant liar. I would highly recommend seeking help from a medical professional if you are deluding yourself this much. You can’t even read english correctly without twisting it into something that frames jews.
1. If TikTok is a problem, so are the other social media platforms
2. The Chinese government can just buy data from a data broker if the ban goes through
3. Such a ban is purely made of xenophobia
4. There’s no evidence that TikTok is being used to influence its users
5. Such a ban runs afoul of the 1st amendment
To this, I say:
1. I agree that the other platforms are a problem and we need comprehensive privacy legislation to address that. Could action against TikTok be better framed as a first step focused on low hanging fruit?
2. I think too many people focus on data gathering in the abstract without considering the richness of data that is only available in 1st party form, i.e. granular data about the kinds of content and ideas that users are interested in and susceptible to. This may exist in some forms from data brokers, but 1st party access enables something much more powerful.
3. I do think some people are primarily concerned because of xenophobia, but this has little bearing on the potentially real underlying issues.
4. TikTok directly asking users to contact their lawmakers was an overt act that shows the platform is capable of spurring on political action by its users. A CCP-controlled platform that can successfully get people to call their congresspeople should make us pause.
5. I am not a lawyer, but this seems like a scenario where commerce is regulated, not speech. I think there is a lot of confusion about what constitutes a true first amendment issue, and in the absence of TikTok, there are a myriad of ways to continue expressing freely.
This is a hard issue to discuss outside of a community like HN because almost all discussions are made up of whataboutism or hardline opinions aligned to 1-5. I truly don’t know what the right answer is, but I do think TikTok should worry us. I think other platforms should worry us too. We already know how harmful Facebook has been to the political process, and arguably social media is still in its infancy compared to whatever is yet to come.
Absolutely no, because if you are making first steps, you need generalize approach and not selectively target companies
> TikTok directly asking users to contact their lawmakers was an overt act that shows the platform is capable of spurring on political action by its users.
What's wrong with this exactly? You have rights to call your congress representatives when you need them, it is normal and expected in functioning democracy, why this is an exception?
> What's wrong with this exactly? You have rights to call your congress representatives when you need them, it is normal and expected in functioning democracy, why this is an exception?
There may not be anything inherently wrong with political action, but when one of the concerns is that the CCP can use TikTok to influence Americans' political behavior, that whole episode proved exactly why everyone believes it. What happens if they start pushing overtly anti-NATO and anti-Taiwan messages instead?
This is an engineering mindset. I’m not aware of any other social media platform that is currently in TikTok’s position wrt affiliation with a geopolitical adversary. I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t also be a comprehensive solution, but right now, it seems clear that TikTok stands alone in terms of why it’s being targeted.
> What's wrong with this exactly? You have rights to call your congress representatives when you need them, it is normal and expected in functioning democracy, why this is an exception?
This isn’t about our rights to call our congresspeople. Of course everyone calling has that right.
At issue is the source of that influence. Outside of the TikTok conversation, such influence is “foreign interference”, “election meddling”, etc. The concern boils down to: are we comfortable with a major foreign government holding the keys to one of the biggest megaphones in existence?
It’s a brilliant play, really. “Direct” interference in the form of targeted advertising and misinformation is something most users find themselves hostile towards. But a social media app that everyone loves is the perfect Trojan horse and in a hypothetical situation where influence was applied in an effort to achieved darker goals, the CCP’s biggest defenders will be their targets. Hypothetically.
"We will just use the same thing we introduced and sweared it will ever be used only, ONLY to protect children"
Anyway, the US should be prepared to ban or regulate other platforms, because all the propaganda that would have come out of TikTok will instead appear in Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, etc. Social media really is the worst invention of our time and honestly I'd be happy to see those platforms go.
So, yes, the website would still work when hosted outside of the US and people could sideload the app but in general it would kill TikTok.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...
How is this such a common opinion while we also critcize the great firewall?
---
Individuals are prohibited from using the Internet to: harm national security; disclose state secrets; or injure the interests of the state or society. Users are prohibited from using the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit information that incites resistance to the PRC Constitution, laws, or administrative regulations; promoting the overthrow of the government or socialist system; undermining national unification; distorting the truth, spreading rumors, or destroying social order; or providing sexually suggestive material or encouraging gambling, violence, or murder. Users are prohibited from engaging in activities that harm the security of computer information networks and from using networks or changing network resources without prior approval.
---
[1] - https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/TIKTOK_xml_a8572d67bb....
Can't wait for us to be rid of them
They would more likely either shut down the US operation, support US users from outside the US, or sell the US users to one of the other social media networks.
It's important to click "not interested" on meme videos for both platforms though. Instagram keeps reverting to meme videos for me (probably because my habits get away from me), but my TikTok account never gives me memes or what I consider low value content.
I wish there was something more like HN, in that it's text-centric, doesn't put my dopamine mechanics into overdrive, but with the content multitude and recommendation accuracy of TikTok. HN is great, but tech stuff isn't the only stuff I care about, and I've not seen good manual moderation scale beyond a frontpage or so.
(Note: There are exceptions for anything the government classifies as "terrorism")
Do you expect TikTok to sell? Or am I missing something?
Their creator program pays a lot of people decent amounts of money and pays an not insignificant amount of people life-changing amounts of money. YouTube can't match it and Instagram isn't even trying.