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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by pbiggar »

This is because the kids are pro-Palestine [1], and because of that, so is content on Tiktok. The massive killing and destruction of Gaza is visible and the kids don't like it.

And so, AIPAC is pissed that everyone can see the apartheid and the bombs dropping on families in Gaza. The US would rather control the media (like they did in the invasion of Iraq, and like they have now which led to the scandal in the nytimes).

[1] https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel...

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

#652

Post by agency »

flakeoil wrote: post #645
throwaway199956 wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Propaganda of other countries are legal under first ammendment. Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which apps one can or cannot use on one's device. Also even at the hight of cold war, Soviet Life magazine was published and disseminated widely in the US.

Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which bomber planes can or cannot enter our country?

Great point - flying a bomber plane over a country is protected speech.

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

#653

Post by aethros »

arrosenberg wrote: post #639
jrockway wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of…

Algorithmic content is not free speech. The government can't make Facebook censor this message or that message, but they can certainly restrict the usage of algorithmic content feeds - that is not protected by the first amendment. I'm not just talking about Tiktok either, this is the issue they should be legislating on, and it should target all social media companies. There is also legislation giving them to right to…

How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run.

Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.

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

#654

Post by hmm37 »

daveguy wrote: post #557
bjourne wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "reciprocity" cannot hide the fact that two wrongs doesn't make a right. We think it is wrong of China to censor Facebook and Twitter because that is what authoritarian regimes that don't give a shit about free speech do. For exactly the same reason it is wrong of the US to ban TikTok. And this bill has nothing to do with balancing international trade. It's stated purpose is to restrict China's ability to in…

China is not a US citizen.

But Tiktok "is". At least Tiktok USA is registered in the US as a US corporation and therefore gets the same protections under US laws. Therefore constitutional protections apply.

You could say the owners of Tiktok don't necessarily get the same protections, but that's a different case. And in this case it is more similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act, but for business purposes rather than immigrational purposes, basically stating that Chinese people aren't allowed to own businesses that operate in the US, and must divest.

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

#655

Post by sophacles »

bjourne wrote: post #504
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…

The word "reciprocity" cannot hide the fact that two wrongs doesn't make a right. We think it is wrong of China to censor Facebook and Twitter because that is what authoritarian regimes that don't give a shit about free speech do. For exactly the same reason it is wrong of the US to ban TikTok. And this bill has nothing to do with balancing international trade. It's stated purpose is to restrict China's ability to in…

What's being censored here? The bill doesn't ban any speech at all - you can put any video tik tok allows on dozens of other video sharing platforms. This is a ban on certain foreign countries (er.. i mean "companies") doing some types of business in the US.

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

#656

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

Nesco wrote: post #23
andiareso wrote: post #13

I'm a big proponent of free speech and the first amendment, but I agree with the reasonings for banning it or forcing US owners. China most definitely has their hands in the data that TikTok amasses and given its popularity it's not an insignificant risk to U.S. citizens. We all know how easy it is to manipulate users... aka Cambridge Analytica. It'll be interesting to see what legal challenges come up if the bill pa…

Why shouldn’t Europeans do the same with US social networks then?

I can't imagine who would genuinely ask this- and it's suspiciously plastered in every single thread on this topic. Think hard! In which way is Europe and the US's relationship different than China and the US's relationship?

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

#657

Post by calibas »

segasaturn wrote: post #450
MBCook wrote: post #307

Ignoring everything else TikTok screwed up. They’re m being accused of having the ability to manipulate public opinion and elections. So what did they do? Push alerts to millions of users telling them of a possible ban and helping them call their representatives to change a political issue’s fortunes. Oops. All of a sudden a ton of representatives who were on the fence jumped off and joined the bandwagon.

How is it a mistake for TikTok to ask Americans to participate in their representative democracy? Do we not remember when Google and Facebook blacked out their sites to stop SOPA from passing, how is TikTok's notification any different?

The US government is accusing the CCP of using TikTok to manipulate democracy.

TikTok responded by attempting to manipulate democracy.

They did they very thing the government trying to ban them is scared of. Doesn't seem like a smart move to me, I guess we'll see how it plays outs

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

#658

Post by code_biologist »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #565
kirse wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. No, TikTok is essentially digital opium. And China itself has confirmed that reality by 1) restricting their citizens' daily access and 2) significantly filtering the content they can see on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-ti... It would only be fair of the US to follow China's example of protecting its citizens from numbin…

If you honestly believed this to be true, you would be arguing for a ban on all social media, as like half of Instagram is just reposts of TikTok content and is otherwise mind-numbingly equivalent to the service.

I believe it to be true and I'd like broad, heavy restriction of algorithmically targeted content but that would go against the interests of massive companies. Not gonna happen. I'll take the win in this instance though, where national security concerns and congress' desire to look like it's doing something align to make a small positive change.

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

#659

Post by andrewla »

graeme wrote: post #605
andrewla wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on what you mean by "installing a botnet"? As a term of art, a botnet refers to a collection of computing devices that can be controlled remotely. I am not aware of any such capability in TikTok itself. Presumably they could attempt to offer a new version of TikTok that allowed arbitrary remote execution or one-time behavior, but this would need to get past Apple's app review process and would be subje…

They're using the word botnet as an analogy. You have to read the whole sentence "installing a botnet in our population ".

In that case I downgrade my assessment of this threat from "minor IT threat" to "nonsensical word salad". The idea that the CCP has a network of Manchurian Candidates waiting to do their bidding is ridiculous.

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

#660

Post by trogdor »

rusty_venture wrote: post #148
piva00 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, I haven't seen anyone actually articulate what the risk from TikTok is. Profiling of a large population, you put them in cohorts, and slowly shift what you show to these cohorts (based on their preferences, worldviews, etc.) to slowly nudge them into a worldview you'd like. It won't be 100% effective but it can definitely shift perceptions, if each cohort is siloed into their own reality bubbles through…

This is fascinating. I think this nuanced approach to shifting the perspectives and beliefs of the population of an adversarial nation is exactly the threat that is being missed by other commentators saying "what does TikTok do that's so bad anyway?" The point is that it is extremely subtle and yet very powerful...if China can convince US citizens that China deserves to rule Taiwan, for instance, the US government ma…

>if China can convince US citizens that China deserves to rule Taiwan, for instance, the US government may find itself without the popular support or political will to take action to protect Taiwanese democracy in the event of an incursion by China

What is so awful about the idea that people in the United States might be convinced of something? What does it matter who is doing the convincing? You just don’t like the hypothetical outcome you suggested.

Are you opposed to a Taiwanese propaganda campaign, conducted through a newly popular Taiwanese social media app and directed at convincing U.S. citizens to support Taiwan in the event of an incursion by China? What’s the difference?

I find scary the idea that the U.S. government would try to protect its citizens from anyone’s speech or ideas. The best response to speech you don’t like is to argue forcefully against it; not to suppress it. We can make up our own minds.

I don’t want the government trying to suppress or protect me from thoughts or ideas it thinks are bad.

Post reply on HN