Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 273 posts

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#61

Post by usernomdeguerre »

lukev wrote: post #23

I haven't heard a good explanation yet for whether this is even legal. It seems like a textbook example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does , and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too. Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.

Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#62

Post by usernomdeguerre »

joenot443 wrote: post #52
coldpie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we agree that that's bad, why do we allow Facebook to do it? Why not craft a ban on the bad behavior, which would then necessarily also preclude Tiktok from doing it?

The very, very straightforward answer is that Facebook is accountable to the US govt in ways that TikTok is not. It's entirely reasonable for the US to legislate accordingly.

More than that, a US company has an innate floor on 'how bad' they're willing to disrupt the US to get what they want, because they live and operate there. A foreign national company has no such floor if they are not our allies.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#63

Post by johngalt_ »

usernomdeguerre wrote: post #61
lukev wrote: post #23

I haven't heard a good explanation yet for whether this is even legal. It seems like a textbook example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does , and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too. Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.

Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.

Same as in the US.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#64

Post by xwdv »

lukev wrote: post #23

I haven't heard a good explanation yet for whether this is even legal. It seems like a textbook example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does , and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too. Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.

I think it’s fine to ban first and ask questions later. If we find out later we shouldn’t have done it we’ll just lift the ban.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#65

Post by intrasight »

Spivak wrote: post #59
joenot443 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very, very straightforward answer is that Facebook is accountable to the US govt in ways that TikTok is not. It's entirely reasonable for the US to legislate accordingly.

> Facebook is accountable to the US govt in ways that TikTok Why wouldn't it be? TikTok is now a US company with the data of US citizens stored in Austin TX. https://usds.tiktok.com/usds-about https://usds.tiktok.com/usds-myths-vs-facts This is actually insane, the level of paranoia surrounding ByteDance has forced TikTok to jump through a billion hoops that no other foreign company has to and weirder still they did…

> TikTok is now a US company

Not sure if I would agree. A friend works there and he's the only English speaking and Caucasian.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#66

Post by usernomdeguerre »

zknow wrote: post #55
Hizonner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The second difference/risk comes with looking whom these apps target: kids. [...] kids are sponges So far as I can tell, the people most vulnerable to Internet propaganda, manipulation, and general bullshit, aren't kids. They're old people. And maybe younger people who've been raised in bubbles that were a bit overprotective. TikTok users are mostly teenagers, not little children. By the time you hit your teens, wh…

I'm not sure if the concern is really blatant disinformation ( which as you point out is easier to smell test ) or if its really more of the thought that the Chinese have a cambridge analytica level style access to American social data. Sure teenagers can parse bias in the media they are consuming, but is it that effective when the media company can tailor content based on the user's preferences + the preferred polit…

Being able to effectively 'tailor' anything to their users pretty much proves they have that (or generate it within their app).

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#67

Post by standardUser »

xwdv wrote: post #64
lukev wrote: post #23

I haven't heard a good explanation yet for whether this is even legal. It seems like a textbook example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does , and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too. Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.

I think it’s fine to ban first and ask questions later. If we find out later we shouldn’t have done it we’ll just lift the ban.

In America it should not be "fine" to ban first and ask questions later. That's preposterous and sets a horrifying precedent. We're a trading nation, not a banning nation.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#68

Post by bogwog »

usernomdeguerre wrote: post #61
lukev wrote: post #23

I haven't heard a good explanation yet for whether this is even legal. It seems like a textbook example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does , and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too. Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.

Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.

If the data collected on TikTok is a national security issue, that would be a good admission since it would mean we'd have to pass some actual privacy laws in this country. Facebook/Google/Microsoft/etc collect the same kind of data, and their revenues are not as important to protect as our national security (I assume).

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#69

Post by Gormo »

usernomdeguerre wrote: post #61
lukev wrote: post #23

I haven't heard a good explanation yet for whether this is even legal. It seems like a textbook example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You'd have to ban TikTok based on something it does , and any such law would impact a lot of other companies too. Or I guess you could ban all Chinese software using trade laws, but that has even bigger ramifications.

Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.

> Are national security arguments not legal?

Arguments aren't a source of law, and what's permissible in legislation is defined by the constitution.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#70

Post by usernomdeguerre »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #47
throw__away7391 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that the opposite was the main concern, pushing a narrative rather than collecting data. I don’t know if it is, but it would be mine. For example, I have seen many videos clearly aimed at young people that casually and weirdly slip in a comment stating that Taiwan is part of China. One example: one of these “a guy asking pretty girls trivia questions” asks two girls a series of questions, to one ques…

This has "we don't have propaganda - we have truth," and "they don't have truth - they have propaganda" vibes to it. I'm frankly tired of being patronized. If the US wants to propagandize to people at least just admit it. At least one side is truthful about it.

If we agree that both parties propagandize we should also recognize that they may do so to different ends, no?
Post reply on HN