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

221–230 of 273 posts

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#221

Post by gardenhedge »

thaanpaa wrote: post #119
gardenhedge wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you look at. The algorithm learns and basically mirrors your interests. Look at crap and it means you're crap. For example I get great gardening tips, DIY videos and learn something every swipe /s I completely agree with you. It's junk! But expect to see my first paragraph as a common rebuttal.

I.e. people who actually use the app are wrong, and you must be right.

I've used the app from an objective point of view. I no longer use the app.

I don't think the people promoting it for gardening tips are being objective. The app is _designed_ to keep you scrolling.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#222

Post by solardev »

ok_dad wrote: post #215
solardev wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Edit: A shorter way to express my thoughts is simply that when we ask a question like "What should we do about foreign propaganda in social media", we should have a legal framework that allows us to explore all possible costs and benefits, not one that just says "Nothing, because an amendment forbids any government action on it"). My opinion (and that's all this is): When it comes to politics and laws, we should not…

There should be no interpretation because those are the axioms of our law right now. I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity. I’d you want to change the first amendment, then you have to amend the constitution, not as laws that are in violation of the amendment. Just…

> I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity.

I think this is the chicken-and-egg situation I'm getting at. We can't update the Constitution because it takes a convention to change it (which won't happen). So it just stays there for centuries, warts and all.

Adding patches to laws is how laws get better over time. States do that all the time when they aren't federally preempted. Other countries too.

IMO, and you can disagree, much of the Constitution is both old AND obsolete.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#223

Post by jayveeone »

rchaud wrote: post #164
jayveeone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Singling out TikTok without addressing events like Cambridge Analytica with Facebook They have addressed it, with the single largest FTC fine in history. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/...

I'm in awe that you linked to the FTC fine as evidence of our government taking action to protect our user data.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#224

Post by ramblenode »

duxup wrote: post #86
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.

China allows social media that complies with Chinese law. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc exited China because they were being heavily criticized in the US for supporting the Great Firewall. It was closer to a US export ban than a Chinese import ban.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#225

Post by aftbit »

dopa42365 wrote: post #211

Russia banned tiktok and instagram etc. in early 2022. Curious to hear about just how that improved everyone's lives. Maybe the "real national security risks" of funny dance or cat clips and pictures of your last meal were slightly exaggerated after all?

The national security risks are three-fold:

1. Anyone who puts an app on your phone can track your behavior, especially your coarse location, but additionally (for TikTok) the trends that you follow. This is actually a huge security risk (affecting basically all devices with any 3rd party apps) that is generally ignored.

2. TikTok allows a foreign government to choose which topics trend which allows them to influence the political and social discourse of other countries.

3. TikTok could be used as a botnet or for network surveillance with a presence on many different LANs.

These problems are mostly not specific to TikTok, but are indeed true for all apps. TikTok just happens to be the most popular app that is developed and managed outside of the USA, making the US more paranoid about it.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#226

Post by ramblenode »

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.

That irony is that if TikTok were breaking US law then there actually would be a legal avenue for the government to enforce changes or ban it. And they absolutely would if they had a case.

The unspoken truth is that TikTok is doing the same shady things as Facebook, but the government doesn't want to ban or regulate Facebook, so a special law has to be crafted to target TikTok.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#227

Post by ramblenode »

gardenhedge wrote: post #28
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?

Because the US government has more authority over Facebook than it does for a Chinese tech company.

What law does Facebook's product have to comply with that TikTok's product doesn't?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#228

Post by jkubicek »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #200
jkubicek wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way Shell targets[1] the youth and attempts to change/form their views to be favorable to fossil fuels. I still don't understand how TikTok is doing anything worse than what any other popular American-based social platform is already doing today. If we're going to legislate TikTok, we should also target Facebook, Fortnite, Twitter, etc. equally. 1: https://www.techspot.com/news/100426-shell-using-fortnite…

Stop arguing in bad faith. It doesn't matter if Shell is worse it doesn't matter if a million other fucking things in the USA are worse. They are all accountable to the USA government. TikTok is not that is the issue.

I'm not arguing in bad faith here, every nefarious action that people in these comments suspect TikTok may do someday, is currently being done today, by American companies, in service of foreign interests and corporate interests.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#229

Post by TheRealPomax »

kube-system wrote: post #141
TheRealPomax wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> until you prove they're spying. Not that I agree with the premise above, but: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by...

I'd rather you expound what what part you don't agree with, because what that link tells us is that the DoJ didn't consider that severe enough to push for a ban on the product.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#230

Post by ok_dad »

solardev wrote: post #222
ok_dad wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be no interpretation because those are the axioms of our law right now. I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity. I’d you want to change the first amendment, then you have to amend the constitution, not as laws that are in violation of the amendment. Just…

> I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity. I think this is the chicken-and-egg situation I'm getting at. We can't update the Constitution because it takes a convention to change it (which won't happen). So it just stays there for centuries, warts and all. Adding patch…

A convention is still the right way, regardless of how hard it is. Sorry but you can’t just say, “this is old and obsolete and it’s hard to change it so let’s make an end run around it.” Doing so just invites bad actors to make those end runs favor themselves.
Post reply on HN