Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#101

Post by standardUser » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:09 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #94

standardUser wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That's pretty funny. TikTok is literally banned in China, along with Facebook, YouTube and all Google, Wikipedia, Twitter, and even Github. There is an actual firewall blocking access, the use of a non-government controlled VPN is a crime. Your iCloud must be stored in China. If you see a post on any social media outlet other than Weibo/WeChat/DouYen/TenCent (which are heavily censored), they are under gov control. T…

Yes, China is a nation that bans thing and censors things, something that in America we at least used to pretend was un-American. Are you taking them for a role model? Or just pointing out the hypocrisy? Either way, I do not intend to learn lessons on governance from the CCP.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#102

Post by coldpie » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:09 PM UTC

labcomputer wrote: post #72

coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but like, spell it out for me. What are the risks?

0. One thing that three letter agencies like to do when posting an intelligence officer to a foreign country is to give them a false identity. Platforms like TikTok make reidentification much easier, which blows their cover. What makes this especially insidious is that this data goes back to childhood, before anyone is thinking about a career in intelligence. 1. Tiktok can identify people (in the US, in the governmen…

If any of what you mention is illegal, and Tiktok is doing it, then we already have enough to stop them and we don't a new law targeting Tiktok, right? If those actions aren't illegal, but we want Tiktok to stop doing them, then why are we crafting a law specifically to allow Facebook to continue to do them?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#103

Post by Clubber » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

beachy wrote: post #93

hammock wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Targets them for what? Mind control? Attempts to change/form their views to be favourable towards dictatorships and antagonistic to democracies.

It's a good thing the US has a strong, incorruptible democracy and fair criminal justice system to counterbalance that propaganda!

/s

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#104

Post by RyEgswuCsn » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

I don't think it is just about TikTok being capable of spying on foreign users; my opinion is that it is more about TikTok's propaganda potential, i.e. how it can be used to manipulate narratives in the most subtle way against U.S.'s national interest.

Imagine the case where the U.S. government would like the (western) world to form certain sentiments on the current regional conflicts that are aligned with its own interests, and then imagine how TikTok's recommendations could be deliberately designed to compromise such alignment...

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#105

Post by kccqzy » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

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.

I think it's fine to incarcerate all Japanese first and ask questions later. If we find out later they aren't really spies and we shouldn't have done it we'll just release them. /s

I think it's fine to incarcerate suspected terrorists first and ask questions later. Since the courts most definitely won't allow that on American soil, we'll incarcerate them in Guantanamo. If we find out later they aren't terrorists we'll just release them. /s

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#106

Post by newsclues » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #104

I don't think it is just about TikTok being capable of spying on foreign users; my opinion is that it is more about TikTok's propaganda potential, i.e. how it can be used to manipulate narratives in the most subtle way against U.S.'s national interest. Imagine the case where the U.S. government would like the (western) world to form certain sentiments on the current regional conflicts that are aligned with its own in…

Like how Twitter was used?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#107

Post by ok_dad » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:16 PM UTC

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #104

I don't think it is just about TikTok being capable of spying on foreign users; my opinion is that it is more about TikTok's propaganda potential, i.e. how it can be used to manipulate narratives in the most subtle way against U.S.'s national interest. Imagine the case where the U.S. government would like the (western) world to form certain sentiments on the current regional conflicts that are aligned with its own in…

Sounds like something out of 1984 to me. “We better ban all the news sources that aren’t approved by the state!” That’s going to push the USA into becoming a totalitarian state. I’m against that, I prefer free access to information with all the warts that come with that as well. I don’t want to be tools what the state approved facts are, because that can be warped in the future when China isn’t a threat or another political group uses the law maliciously in the future.

The first amendment is the first one for a reason. Free expression is key to keeping a democracy, IMO.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#108

Post by wolverine876 » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

standardUser wrote: post #67

xwdv wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also a free nation.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#109

Post by throwawaymaths » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

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.

Not really. IANAL but I imagine one could conditionally disincorporate tik tok (unless it complies with X Y or Z). Incorporation is a privilege, not a right, so that's not attainder. It would likely also be administrative , through FTC, so, also not congressional. At that point the owners of tiktok would become legally liable for the things that it does and also I think it would also lose safe harbor provisions. Nobody wants to operate a tiktok in that state.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#110

Post by thaanpaa » Mon, Oct 09, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

jayveeone wrote: post #8

chankstein38 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implications, as far as I've understood, is that the Chinese government has access and, theoretically, could be slurping the information that TikTok collects which is seemingly more than some others collect. I'm not purporting to know this is happening but I believe this is the reason for the assertion.

There is zero proof that TikTok collects more user data or uses that data any more nefariously than Meta. US privacy laws are a joke. Singling out TikTok without addressing events like Cambridge Analytica with Facebook, is at best suspicious.

Everyone seems to believe that all the apps spy on users (such as tracking your location, etc.), but I don't believe the platforms actually permit this unless the user expressly grants the app permission. However, just having a huge database of videos, viewing patterns, and social connections to analyze can be absurdly valuable, but I don't see all of that becoming illegal anytime soon.