Maybe, but we have all kinds of laws on foreign ownership of media. And for good reason: you don’t want the primary source of input to come from a hostile government. TikTok IS the primary news source for the American youth and is used by half the country. To not intervene is to give away future minds and the country to outside influence.
And for those who say FB is also ruining minds, I don’t disagree, but at least it’s “our problem” which means it’s up to us to solve it as well.
> There is no world where TikTok should have been allowed to even go this far....
Sorry, what are you talking avout? How "far" is far? How TikTok is different from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
> Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
That's for real one of the two main reasons being given to force the sale of TikTok. It sounds insane because it is. It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart.
The other reason begin floated is because TikTok has been showing young people what Israel are doing with the unflinching rock-hard support of damn near our entire Congress. Also categorically insane. Also deeply supremacist and unconstitutional.
67% of Americans support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compared to just 11% of Congress.That's a hell of a disparity.
TikTok pierced corporate and social media's veil, so they are being explicitly treated as a threat to 'US interests' (read: the interests of the international ultra-wealthy).
> It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart.
You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent.
Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place?
Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled).
> deeply unconstitutional
It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil?
> categorically stupid
By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
That isn’t remotely true. They're not banned outright. Things like iCloud and Bing still work in China because Microsoft and Apple are willing to register a company that is owned by a Chinese owned majority and accepts audit, there is a legal fundamental for that in China's law for this. Now we are just doing exactly the same at US.
> It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil?
By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
It's a law that limits what ByteDance, a foreign company run by a foreign government, can own and operate on US soil. Nothing in the constitution enshrines a right for a foreign company or government.
The users who have a million followers or make money using TikTok are expecting that the sale doesn't happen. In the best light, the TikTok forced sale will be constitutional if it succeeds (i.e. results in a forced sale) and will be unconstitutional if it fails (i.e. results in a ban). But even assuming that a sale will happen (and putting aside the burden of demonstrating that "this law changes nothing"), two things would change. In the short term (i.e. during the transition), I would expect interruptions in the content moderation at best (temporary increase in posts in violation of TikTok's rules). In the long term, I expect the change in managing personnel to change the content moderation, including the recommendation algorithm. Users of post-sale TikTok will receive different information than they did from pre-sale TikTok.
Lamont v. Postmaster General confirmed a First Amendment right for a US citizen to receive foreign propaganda in the mail without needing to tell the government "I consent to receiving foreign propaganda". If such a simple burden as having to write a sentence to the federal government to receive foreign propaganda violates the First Amendment, then surely the temporary degradation of TikTok's service (of uncertain length from the average TikTok user's perspective) in the course of a forced sale would violate the First Amendment as well.
Less rigorously, I suspect that the TikTok forced sale is unconstitutional (relating to "deprived of life, liberty, or property" in the Fifth Amendment), since the US employees at TikTok's US office will have uncertain job security.
Note: When I say "unconstitutional" I mean in the context of "so long as the federal government refuses to declassify its evidence that TikTok is a national security threat".
Pretending China/Russia/Iran companies are evil while US companies are not because of some preconceived notion is a great way to let that world order crumble.
Would any of those countries let us run a service with the same scale or influence in their borders? (Is there any non state media in those countries).
You're comparing the banality of "corporate evil" to actual evil.
I am sure if TikTok is owned by a western countries wouldn't yield into a result of lawmakers creating laws that is doing something very similar as CCP does, that is, operating Internet based service requires the company to be owned by a Chinese entity at majority, that is exactly the reason why Google quits China, and we used to dispise what CCP does, now we are like "CCP is doing the good stuff and we should follow"
Were not limiting any ones right to speak, were restricting who can own a platform, and excluding a foreign government. Nothing about that in the constitution.
You mean what china did to Twitter, Facebook, Google....
This move is not without president. Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media... extending it to the web in this case, is a no brainer.
To be precise I believe that China's requirements were mostly around using local datacenters and respecting censors, the US is actually going a step further even if only because it is ashamed of how much it needs to censors its warcrimes.
> Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media
The traditional media was an oligopoly and a very important gatekeeper of information. The internet is both of those things but in a less exclusive fashion.
I don't like regulating tech, the internet should be free. No blocking, no censorship. I don't like banning TikTok, I don't like a lot of what the EU is doing with big tech, even though I like neither TikTok nor big tech. It's principle and precedent.
What should be regulated is foreign business activity, when Chinese companies try to register a regional subsidiary in the US for example. That should be possible, but with a company originating in China there should be precautions not to let the CCP have influence on the American company.
Problem solved, and you don't turn the internet into a censored splinternet.
Of course. But what if I don't care? The problem is that there's no "I accept the risks, give me the unregulated version" button on the newer regulations.
For example, there's Windows N edition, which complies with older EU regulation by not including media players and some other pre-installed apps. I can choose this edition, but if I don't care then I can also just choose regular Windows in the installer. That's great.
I want this choice for all features "not available (yet) in the EU". Some foreign local news sites block all EU users because they don't want to deal with GDPR, and they can't really give me the option to continue anyway as far as I'm aware. That's a block, and I don't support that.
because lawmakers never intended to ban TikTok and its content, that is just a cover for Preventing CCP from making money from it, it's not a good-will law for its people but rather for capitalist, which is why selling TikTok was also provided as an option.
It's a murky issue, but I think it really comes down to how much we trust the Chinese government. I don't, not at all, and so long as the Chinese government controls TikTok I will support the forced sale.
32 comments
[ 0.60 ms ] story [ 81.3 ms ] threadAnd for those who say FB is also ruining minds, I don’t disagree, but at least it’s “our problem” which means it’s up to us to solve it as well.
Sorry, what are you talking avout? How "far" is far? How TikTok is different from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
That's for real one of the two main reasons being given to force the sale of TikTok. It sounds insane because it is. It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart.
The other reason begin floated is because TikTok has been showing young people what Israel are doing with the unflinching rock-hard support of damn near our entire Congress. Also categorically insane. Also deeply supremacist and unconstitutional.
67% of Americans support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compared to just 11% of Congress.That's a hell of a disparity.
TikTok pierced corporate and social media's veil, so they are being explicitly treated as a threat to 'US interests' (read: the interests of the international ultra-wealthy).
You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
That doesn't make it right.
> deeply unconstitutional
It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil?
> categorically stupid
By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
> It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil?
By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
This law changes nothing for US TikTok users.
The users who have a million followers or make money using TikTok are expecting that the sale doesn't happen. In the best light, the TikTok forced sale will be constitutional if it succeeds (i.e. results in a forced sale) and will be unconstitutional if it fails (i.e. results in a ban). But even assuming that a sale will happen (and putting aside the burden of demonstrating that "this law changes nothing"), two things would change. In the short term (i.e. during the transition), I would expect interruptions in the content moderation at best (temporary increase in posts in violation of TikTok's rules). In the long term, I expect the change in managing personnel to change the content moderation, including the recommendation algorithm. Users of post-sale TikTok will receive different information than they did from pre-sale TikTok.
Lamont v. Postmaster General confirmed a First Amendment right for a US citizen to receive foreign propaganda in the mail without needing to tell the government "I consent to receiving foreign propaganda". If such a simple burden as having to write a sentence to the federal government to receive foreign propaganda violates the First Amendment, then surely the temporary degradation of TikTok's service (of uncertain length from the average TikTok user's perspective) in the course of a forced sale would violate the First Amendment as well.
Less rigorously, I suspect that the TikTok forced sale is unconstitutional (relating to "deprived of life, liberty, or property" in the Fifth Amendment), since the US employees at TikTok's US office will have uncertain job security.
Note: When I say "unconstitutional" I mean in the context of "so long as the federal government refuses to declassify its evidence that TikTok is a national security threat".
Would any of those countries let us run a service with the same scale or influence in their borders? (Is there any non state media in those countries).
You're comparing the banality of "corporate evil" to actual evil.
I have no words.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
Were not limiting any ones right to speak, were restricting who can own a platform, and excluding a foreign government. Nothing about that in the constitution.
This move is not without president. Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media... extending it to the web in this case, is a no brainer.
To be precise I believe that China's requirements were mostly around using local datacenters and respecting censors, the US is actually going a step further even if only because it is ashamed of how much it needs to censors its warcrimes.
> Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media
The traditional media was an oligopoly and a very important gatekeeper of information. The internet is both of those things but in a less exclusive fashion.
TikTok never forced their users to use TikTok
I mean, people have choices and made the decision to use TikTok.
What should be regulated is foreign business activity, when Chinese companies try to register a regional subsidiary in the US for example. That should be possible, but with a company originating in China there should be precautions not to let the CCP have influence on the American company.
Problem solved, and you don't turn the internet into a censored splinternet.
People don't deserve to be exploited if they are not capable of protecting themselves in a "wild west" Internet.
For example, there's Windows N edition, which complies with older EU regulation by not including media players and some other pre-installed apps. I can choose this edition, but if I don't care then I can also just choose regular Windows in the installer. That's great.
I want this choice for all features "not available (yet) in the EU". Some foreign local news sites block all EU users because they don't want to deal with GDPR, and they can't really give me the option to continue anyway as far as I'm aware. That's a block, and I don't support that.