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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by rany_ »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #562
throwaway237289 wrote: post #19

Don't be fooled by talk about security or privacy. This is simple Nation State realpolitik. TikTok is a propaganda threat controlled by a non-friendly state to the US. Any other way to look at this is naive.

It's not even just about propaganda. Watch Tik Tok videos in China and it's all young people helping the elderly, learning job skills, and doing other socially virtuous things. Watch Tik Tok videos outside of China and it's all videos of kids stealing cars, eating Tide pods, and pranking people in Home Depot.

I mostly get some science videos and old comedy sketches. It will just recommend content you're into, same as any other social media network.

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

#672

Post by Brybry »

throwaway237289 wrote: post #19

Don't be fooled by talk about security or privacy. This is simple Nation State realpolitik. TikTok is a propaganda threat controlled by a non-friendly state to the US. Any other way to look at this is naive.

I think forcing a sale of TikTok is fine -- after all China effectively does the same thing for all US companies in China.

But H.R. 7521 gives power to handle more than TikTok. (g)(3)(B) [1] certainly looks to me like it can be used by any President to pressure or outright censor many foreign sites and apps.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

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

#673

Post by hmm37 »

samspenc wrote: post #503
dartharva wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of American companies operate in Chinese consumer markets, Apple for example. One fifth of Apple's annual revenue comes from China, yet the country never retaliated with banning it while the US turned the whole world against Huawei.

Errr, are you sure China hasn't done anything against Apple / iPhone? https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-apples-iphone-... https://www.investopedia.com/china-nationalism-response-to-i... https://fortune.com/2024/03/05/apples-iphone-sales-plummet-c...

That's not even remotely the same. That's more equivalent of banning the installation of tiktok on government phones, which should be considered normal for security reasons. Apple is still able to freely operate in China otherwise.

And your other articles don't have anything to do with Apple being banned, but rather that Huawei's new phone is now able to compete with Apple sales, despite US trying to destroy Huawei.

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

#674

Post by WillPostForFood »

exabrial wrote: post #99

This is a war over cultural influence. I'm 100% for free markets and anti-regulation (as it nearly all is based on bribes targeted to harm competition), but I've never figured out a good theoretical policy for how a free market should interact with a unbridled dictatorship like China.

China is not only a dictatorship, but a market that is closed or highly restricted to most US businesses. Free trade isn't an option if the US wanted it.

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

#675

Post by bakuninsbart »

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…

Reciprocity in this case is supposed to mean "We allow your companies in as long as they follow the local laws, and you will allow our companies in as long as they follow the local laws." TikTok is following American law, which is significantly more permissible in terms of speech than China.

American social media giants thought it was too damaging to follow Chinese law and voluntarily retreated (Google), played the game until they got burned (Facebook) or silently comply (Bing/Microsoft).

In the case of Facebook, they didn't want to share data on Uighur separatists, who organized protests on Facebook, which in turn left hundreds of people dead. Barring any kind of moral judgment, this obviously wouldn't fly in the US either.

No, at the core of this issue is the realisation that a social media giant has enormous influence on the minds of the next generation, and having this be in the hands of foreign powers is very dangerous. Of course, the US doesn't want to be super open about this, since 4/5 global players in social media are American, and they'd rather not have other regions get similar thoughts.

In the end, the reasoning is sound while the justification is hypocritical.

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

#676

Post by paganel »

BatFastard wrote: post #512
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…

I don't think the founders could account for international influence in the age of the Internet and smart phones. No one is asking for a great wall around the US. People are just asking that major influencers are not under the control of hostile governments.

If American democracy goes down because of "foreign influencers" from platforms like TikTok then it means that it wasn't all that strong to begin with.

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

#677

Post by jrsj »

takoid wrote: post #413

In a previous discussion thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39692670 ), there was a significant amount of discussion regarding the belief that the push for this legislation may be influenced by the pro-Israel lobby, specifically in reaction to the uncensored flow of information via TikTok following the events of October 7th in Gaza. These discussions were quickly downvoted and flagged. However, I believe i…

If this is true, AIPAC is a greater foreign threat than TikTok. Maybe we should ban AIPAC instead.

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

#678

Post by cogman10 »

throwaway199956 wrote: post #613
zachmu wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tiktok isn't "some website", it is partially owned and controlled by the CCP, which influences what content gets shown to Americans. A majority of zoomers get most of their news and information primarily from this platform, which again is under the influence of a hostile foreign government. (TikTok also spies on US citizens for the CCP, but let's keep this restricted to the free speech argument about the ban). We act…

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.

> Doesn't first ammendment protect even that.

Nope. The first amendment protects the speech of US citizens and only to a certain extent. This is why the US has a torture center in Guantanamo. To avoid issues of constitutional rights.

This is also, btw, what allows the CIA and NSA to spy on data you send overseas in violation of the 4th amendment.

US laws are geographically bound.

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

#679

Post by hn_acker »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #180
catskul2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

non-political is political. Do you imagine that there aren't people making political TikToks? Or that non-political themes don't affect politics? Or that bubble control doesn't affect politics?

Sorry, what? How are my dancing Korean girls and cat videos affecting politics?

catskul2's comment was very ambiguous, but a charitable interpretation of the first part

> non-political is political. Do you imagine that there aren't people making political TikToks?

is that you are indeed in a filter bubble of non-political content which exists alongside political content. One example of political content on TikTok within the larger Israel-Hamas war topic was the brief trend of commenting on Osama bin Laden's manifesto called "Letter to America" [1]. If you were (not saying that you are) knowingly ignoring the existence of political content on a specific topic on TikTok, then you would be making an inherently political decision (which does not mean that you should change your decision).

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/osama-bin-ladens-lette...

Post reply on HN