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

House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#491

Post by franciscop »

segasaturn wrote: post #446
franciscop wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Tiktok is much worse for US citizens: - Facebook+Twitter are US-based entities and have to follow US laws and regulations in a much more strict way than Tiktok - They are not controlled by a politically-motivated adversarial government You are also conflating apps "from a country" vs apps "under a country's gvmt control". I think most here would agree "apps from a plurality of countries" is a good goal to strive…

TikTok is run out of the United States and adheres to the same laws as Twitter and Facebook. Its CEO, Shou Chew, was just at a hearing in front of Congress last month.

As an example, do you think a US citizen personal data is as secure from requests from the CCP in e.g. Facebook as it is in Tiktok? That TikTok executives are as liable to US laws and prosecution as Facebook execs?

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#492

Post by HKH2 »

codedokode wrote: post #340

If US bans TikTok then other countries should ban US apps because they can be used for spying and manipulation of public opinion the same way. Either a country makes its own apps or it becomes a subject to foreign influence.

China even blocks HN.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#493

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

ramesh31 wrote: post #462
codekaze wrote: post #213

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete…

>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are the United States, and we are better than that. We are a society that promotes free trade, freedom of expression, and economic globalization to the ends of the earth. It's kind of our whole thing.

How many democratic governments have been overthrown with US assistance because it benefited oil or fruit companies?

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#494

Post by dartharva »

codedokode wrote: post #407
BeetleB wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. If someone makes a video of a TikTok video and shares it on Youtube/Whatsapp, that's legal. The actual content is legal, so it's not a free speech/censorship issue. This is the equivalent of "We'v…

Except this is not about commerce. US wants to ban TikTok for the same reason Russia has blocked BBC. Russia believes that information from BBC can harmfully influence people's mind.

I hope you are aware that Tiktok doesn't generate content by itself? A comparison with BBC is stupid.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#495

Post by Miner49er »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #456
bilekas wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? I understand what you're saying and I actually support the ban as tiktok can be used as a giant botnet at-will by Chinas government, but an eye for an eye doesn't end well and the US is supposed to be "free" so this part of the argument I…

US freedom applies only to citizens and residents and not foreign govts.

Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want, including whatever is on Tik Tok. This is covered by the first amendment.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#496

Post by darcagn »

codedokode wrote: post #417
tcptomato wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a First Amendment issue, it's regulating commerce with a foreign nation.

So if TikTok was not earning any profit from US (for example, if it was sponsored by the govt), there would be no commerce and it would not be banned? I do not believe that.

Profit is not the standard for the regulation of commerce in the United States though.

When the federal government set limits on crop production with the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as its justification, Roscoe Filburn was simply growing wheat over the limit to feed his farm animals. That wheat was never sold, and it never crossed the property line to leave his farm, much less crossed state lines. The government still fined him and he lost his case in SCOTUS establishing precedent in Wickard v. Filburn, because it affected the market prices of wheat, despite the miniscule impact.

The same could be said of TikTok even if it doesn't earn a penny in profit.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#497

Post by groby_b »

Leary wrote: post #396
corytheboyd wrote: post #323

This is going to be a shit show. I don’t even really know where I stand. On one hand, we have to acknowledge that an adversarial government has massively succeeded in installing a botnet in our population— even if that wasn’t the initial intent of ByteDance, it’s effectively true now. On the other hand, you can’t stop people from installing spyware, donating money to fraudster politicians, surrendering themselves to…

It’s going to pass Congress, signed into law. Then a federal judge will issue a preliminary injunction blocking it on first amendment grounds just like what happened both times with the Montana ban in 2023 and trumps executive order in 2020

We're all clear on that the ultimate outcome depends on which lobbyists pay better, right?

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#498

Post by junon »

falcolas wrote: post #295
contrarian1234 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence it's been used for propaganda? I don't use TikTok a lot, but it seems very non-political (maybe it's my filter bubble). The real cesspool of hatred and madness is Facebook - but of course Congress doesn't care too much about that. As far as I remember from the previous elections the Russian bots were operating on US based platforms

Are folks using it to distribute propaganda? Yes. Is there evidence - any evidence whatsoever - that CCP or bytedance is using tiktok to push a particular flavor of propaganda? No. That said, TikTok's moderation is quite unfriendly to LGBTQ+ and Palestine creators (even though they find ways around it).

Your comment contradicts even itself, and is refuted by several comments in this thread.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#499

Post by c4wrd »

voldacar wrote: post #455
bilekas wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? I understand what you're saying and I actually support the ban as tiktok can be used as a giant botnet at-will by Chinas government, but an eye for an eye doesn't end well and the US is supposed to be "free" so this part of the argument I…

>an eye for an eye doesn't end well Actually in most games that are played repeatedly, the optimal strategy is to cooperate with cooperators and defect against defectors.

This simplification misses key nuances. Strategies like Tit-for-Tat (TFT) are context-sensitive and not universally "optimal." Effectiveness varies with game structure, communication clarity, and the presence of noise. Moreover, the "optimal" strategy adjusts in finite games (which you didn't clarify which type of game) due to the endgame effect.

Simple hole in your simplification: one simple misunderstanding could lead to an endless cycle of defection where everyone will defect on each other: game over.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#500

Post by franciscop »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #488
franciscop wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Tiktok is much worse for US citizens: - Facebook+Twitter are US-based entities and have to follow US laws and regulations in a much more strict way than Tiktok - They are not controlled by a politically-motivated adversarial government You are also conflating apps "from a country" vs apps "under a country's gvmt control". I think most here would agree "apps from a plurality of countries" is a good goal to strive…

This is a completely irrational argument, rooted solely in xenophobic appeals, that can be trivially dismissed by inverting the premise: Do Chinese citizens have more to fear from state control and monitoring of domestic social media services or those owned by companies outside China?

Those are not equivalent as I hint in my last paragraph, different countries and gvmt influence do have different risk factors. You can e.g. criticize the US gvmt in a US-based app with no consequences. Good luck doing that in China (that = criticizing the CCP on a Chinese-based app while living in China).
Post reply on HN