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

81–90 of 273 posts

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#81

Post by osti »

intrasight wrote: post #65
Spivak wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

By this logic, Amazon would be an Indian company, Google and Meta also have many teams composed of mainly Chinese so they would be Chinese companies as well.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#82

Post by Mountain_Skies »

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…

@intrasight, my first job out of college in 2000 was for a small dot com owned entirely by a Jewish family in Texas. I was the only non Mandarin speaking software developer in the company. It's not all that uncommon in the tech industry regardless of ownership.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#83

Post by usernomdeguerre »

standardUser wrote: post #73
mschuster91 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

> First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. Statements like that really make me question people's knowledge of basic history and international politics. Yes, a nation's major commercial actors often work in conjecture with their government. Is this news to anyone? This is not unique to China in the least. > The second difference/risk comes with…

if he had directed it as "Think of the adults" would you feel differently? It seems silly to say that propaganda/news/information has no influence on people when we demonstrate that it does every single day of our lives.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#84

Post by hammock »

mschuster91 wrote: post #14
coldpie wrote: post #5

> "There are real national security risks associated with TikTok, but it’s also an app 150 million Americans use," said Peter Harrell, who served on Biden’s National Security Council until last fall. It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. Banning it on government devices makes sense, but I don't understand why they're trying to ban individuals from using…

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

You still didn't explain the risks too clearly.

Let's grant that TikTok is under direct CCP control, and specifically targets kids. Targets them for what? Mind control?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#85

Post by mschuster91 »

standardUser wrote: post #73
mschuster91 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

> First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. Statements like that really make me question people's knowledge of basic history and international politics. Yes, a nation's major commercial actors often work in conjecture with their government. Is this news to anyone? This is not unique to China in the least. > The second difference/risk comes with…

> Statements like that really make me question people's knowledge of basic history and international politics. Yes, a nation's major commercial actors often work in conjecture with their government

There's a difference between cooperating with the government - my country, Germany, is infamous for the close webs between government and its car companies - but there is no chain of command (other than a partial stake that Lower Saxony holds in VW) between the industry and politics. If anything, it's the other way around, companies pay a shitload in "party donations" to have the government represent its interest in the EU and abroad.

> And this argument is so tired that it even has its own Wikipedia page explaining that it is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

A lot of TOTC is bullshit and usually pulled for the ulterior motive of (effectively) banning stuff for adults by imposing obscene obstacles (such as the planned EU chat control, or British anti-porn legislation). But here, it's aimed squarely at adolescents who use Tiktok as their most popular news source [1] - no matter what, that IS dangerous.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/tiktok-is...

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#86

Post by duxup »

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 have no problem as far as handling it like a trade issue.

China doesn't allow such social media networks from the US.

I got no problem banning theirs.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#87

Post by kelseyfrog »

usernomdeguerre wrote: post #70
kelseyfrog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yep, and as someone on the receiving end, one can choose to defect as a bargaining tactic.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#88

Post by cjbgkagh »

colordrops wrote: post #56
ac54321 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. How about “they’re using the app to spy on us for a Foreign Hostile Government ”

Is "Foreign Hostile Government" an official legal distinction? I thought the US was still on good terms with China as a trade partner.

It’s a weird duality with import taxes acting as a middle ground. It seems the belief that a conflict with China is inevitable is becoming more pervasive. So much of the US economy relies on reselling Chinese goods that to stop trading completely would be calamitous. I think the idea is to keep trading right up until the war starts. I’ve already stocked up on goods and materials that are only available from China as I include myself as one of those who believe a great power conflict is coming.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#89

Post by enragedcacti »

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.

The media refers to it as a TikTok ban and its apparent that TikTok is the inspiration, but the RESTRICT act never mentions TikTok specifically. Instead, the act:

> proposes that the Secretary of Commerce be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States or its citizens.

A court could still find it unconstitutional depending on how its targeted and the statements of its sponsors, but textually it is a ban based on broad criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#90

Post by TheRealPomax »

ejlxsh wrote: post #48
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.

Can’t you ban an app based on purpose, “they’re using the app to spy on us”, and then case law applies it on an app by app basis?

What purpose, though? Because if the purpose is "you're not allowed to spy", you can't ban software until you prove they're spying. And the US already has multiple laws that cover that problem, with courts being entirely allowed to rule that a product must be taken off the US market, be that a physical product or software.

This is congress trying to ban a named product by bypassing the courts, in order not to have to bother with the whole "burden of proof" thing, rather than the justice department bringing a case to the courts to get existing laws enforced.

And yes, technically it's "congress makes the laws, the courts enforce those laws", but congress is bound by the constitution, and if congress singles out a specific individual or company, that's (amazingly, because it almost never is) an actual first amendment violation.

Whereas taking a company to court in order to get it banned for "spying on behalf of a foreign nation" is not.

Post reply on HN