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

231–240 of 273 posts

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#231

Post by duxup »

logicchains wrote: post #174
duxup wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doesn't have any problem executing suspected spies without trial, does that mean the US should too? The US has a constitution that gives people rights; the government can't just do whatever it wants. Regardless of your personal opinion on TikTok it doesn't change that it's a product used and loved by millions of Americans, and banning it has a meaningful negative impact on them.

How about no when it comes to killing people as you describe?

But yes on social media.

I don’t see any issues with that.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#232

Post by duxup »

rchaud wrote: post #160
duxup wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'Social Media' isn't a product category with safety and quality guidelines like agriculture or steel. It can't be banned on the basis of tit-for-tat without triggering a trade war blanket-banning a whole range of consumer software.

I am all for trying.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#233

Post by kube-system »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #229
kube-system wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It doesn't surprise me that they don't care, setting policy for forward looking national security matters isn't their job.

The part I disagree with is the idea that "they're using the app to spy on us" is a benchmark that some in the government care about, or a reasonable benchmark at that.

On this topic there are often people asking for evidence that TikTok has done anything wrong, but that's really besides the whole point. Governance can be an issue whether or not someone has abused a power. Past performance is not the be-all and end-all of security; means and motivations are also something to consider.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#234

Post by TheRealPomax »

kube-system wrote: post #233
TheRealPomax wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't surprise me that they don't care, setting policy for forward looking national security matters isn't their job. The part I disagree with is the idea that "they're using the app to spy on us" is a benchmark that some in the government care about, or a reasonable benchmark at that. On this topic there are often people asking for evidence that TikTok has done anything wrong, but that's really besides the whol…

Wait, hold up, you're saying that the DoJ, which is definitely "some in government" (because congress is not government, it's just one part of the government, there are many more parts) don't use the law as their benchmark?

Because that would be literally the opposite of reality O_o

The question is around whether the DoJ can make things stick, and the DoJ doesn't waste its time, and doesn't burn its budget, on cases they know they can't make stick.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#235

Post by kube-system »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #234
kube-system wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't surprise me that they don't care, setting policy for forward looking national security matters isn't their job. The part I disagree with is the idea that "they're using the app to spy on us" is a benchmark that some in the government care about, or a reasonable benchmark at that. On this topic there are often people asking for evidence that TikTok has done anything wrong, but that's really besides the whol…

Wait, hold up, you're saying that the DoJ, which is definitely "some in government" (because congress is not government, it's just one part of the government, there are many more parts) don't use the law as their benchmark? Because that would be literally the opposite of reality O_o The question is around whether the DoJ can make things stick, and the DoJ doesn't waste its time, and doesn't burn its budget, on cases…

Apologies for lack of clarity, by "some in government" I was referring to the ones who are voicing concerns about TikTok.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#236

Post by throwthrow1010 »

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…

I find you to be a dangerous degenerate who should be banned from the internet and any form of communication. I do mean this, it's not a hyperbole.

What now?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#237

Post by asadotzler »

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/...

How is 7% of that one year's revenue meaningful? Facebook could pay that every year and still be extremely lucrative. So, no, it has not been addressed.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#238

Post by unmole »

webninja wrote: post #186
rchaud wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Social Media' isn't a product category with safety and quality guidelines like agriculture or steel. It can't be banned on the basis of tit-for-tat without triggering a trade war blanket-banning a whole range of consumer software.

First, the trade war already started with China banning US companies domestically. Second, it’s not like the US can’t trade more with its South American neighbors instead anyways.

> China banning US companies domestically.

When did this happen?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#239

Post by solardev »

ok_dad wrote: post #230
solardev wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I wish I could still believe that :( In recent years, it seems like playing by the book is a surefire way to lose everything you've worked for over the decades, as one corrupt party increasingly ignores norms and laws and just sets out to destroy the country for their own gain (and it's working all too well).

Wish the "good guys" had somebody like that, willing to bend the rules where necessary, but for the public good instead of personal gain.

Post reply on HN