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

US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 224 posts

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#51

Post by mschuster91 »

brigadier132 wrote: post #42
gklitz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see what you mean. Europe should force the US to divest from Facebook and have it transferred fully to European owners.

The US is following a tit for tat strategy. Which European companies has the US forced to divest their holdings to justify the action you're proposing?

I remember the Nord Stream saga, where the US (or, at least a few senators) threatened to sanction a harbor if it would not cease to provide support for pipelayer ships [1].

I mean, in hindsight the US were completely right in their position towards NS, but it's a prime example of the US being not afraid to go even against allied countries.

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/us-sanctions-nord-stream-2-gas/a-54565...

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#52

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

mindslight wrote: post #35
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement I'd agree if such a solution was also being considered and would take the same amount of time. How long do you think it would take to write and pass such a bill? I think it would take so long to be essentially a useless diversion. It's an idea that people would push who never want any of these changes because it sounds like a viable alternative b…

The best time to plant a shade tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is today. And realpolitik, I get that both parties work for and benefit from the corporations in their own ways, and aren't too keen on legislation that protects individual rights at the expense of corporate control. I just hate the blatant hypocrisy - this TikTok situation has only come about due to the past two+ decades of regulatory abd…

Yes. Pass the bill that we have now and keep fighting for more.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#53

Post by willcipriano »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
willcipriano wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's suspicious in this single instance to suddenly care about reciprocity, having never really had a concern in the decades prior. These people would audibly gasp if you suggested in their presence that tariffs should be equal to what China taxes US firms. Why this? Why now?

> tariffs should be equal to what China taxes US firms We’ve been in a trade war with China for 6 years [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_...

"We"? that was more of a DJT thing, he was lambasted for it, the security state wanted TPP. They call stepping away from it a mistake.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#54

Post by nearbuy »

jnovek wrote: post #6

I’m not comfortable with this. I understand that TikTok may represent a national security concern but it’s also a platform that younger generations use for protected speech. What’s the message that we’re sending to this group?

Is it a security concern compared to everything else we get from China, or are we just holding TikTok specifically to an unattainably high standard? We get so many products from China that could potentially be used for spying that we've never tried to ban due to security concerns. Who can say the ESP32 Wifi module doesn't have a hardware or software backdoor hidden in it?

AFAIK, there has never been any evidence or reason to suspect TikTok of sharing private data from Americans with the Chinese government. It seems like simply being from China is the crime the US government wants to ban TikTok for.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#55

Post by brigadier132 »

willcipriano wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tariffs should be equal to what China taxes US firms We’ve been in a trade war with China for 6 years [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_...

"We"? that was more of a DJT thing, he was lambasted for it, the security state wanted TPP. They call stepping away from it a mistake.

TPP was a strategy to counter China's growing influence, it wouldn't have benefited them.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#56

Post by _akhe »

throwaway333444 wrote: post #41
_akhe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China bans sites & apps from the West that violate their laws - the ad tracking, monitoring, censorship & influencer/fake news we have here... the funding schemes and market monopolizing that companies like Facebook do in the West is just not legal there. Can you blame them for not wanting it? Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there - you can play…

Actually you haven’t been able to play WoW in China for a ~year. But that’s largely irrelevant to your point. More specifically Blizzard is able to bring their product to everywhere else in the world. The fact that they choose to “work” with a local partner in China to get access to that market reads more to me like a government run racket / forced rent seeking than anything else. > approach China with realistic deal…

> Actually you haven’t been able to play WoW in China for a ~year

Not true: https://www.wowhead.com/news/over-two-million-players-sign-u...

Their services are literally live right now if they are taking signups.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#57

Post by _akhe »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15
_akhe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China bans sites & apps from the West that violate their laws - the ad tracking, monitoring, censorship & influencer/fake news we have here... the funding schemes and market monopolizing that companies like Facebook do in the West is just not legal there. Can you blame them for not wanting it? Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there - you can play…

> Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there China isn’t a country with the rule of law. They don’t even pretend as much. If you appease Xi, you can stay. If you don’t, you’re out.

What's next on TV?

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#58

Post by _akhe »

celdon25 wrote: post #28
_akhe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China bans sites & apps from the West that violate their laws - the ad tracking, monitoring, censorship & influencer/fake news we have here... the funding schemes and market monopolizing that companies like Facebook do in the West is just not legal there. Can you blame them for not wanting it? Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there - you can play…

> unlike Facebook it's not involved in censorship I guess you don’t know about the “F word and SH word” incident with the blizzard GM and the pro player getting banned from overwatch 2 for swearing and appeal rejected despite the words being filtered by a profanity filter that defaults to enabled. https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/blizzard-confi...

Censorship meaning entire narratives in the news like hiding involvement of state or corporate actors in illegal activities, not a moderator/GM abusing power in a chat.

Moderator abuse is a problem too, but tiny in comparison and not actually illegal if you agree to their terms.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#59

Post by willcipriano »

brigadier132 wrote: post #55
willcipriano wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We"? that was more of a DJT thing, he was lambasted for it, the security state wanted TPP. They call stepping away from it a mistake.

TPP was a strategy to counter China's growing influence, it wouldn't have benefited them.

Been a lot of high minded "strategy" like that. Hasn't really been working out. I don't think China's influence was growing, ours is just shrinking, you can only lose so many wars to farmers before people stop taking you seriously.

Also, I don't how you have a TPP with a country that you don't allow to own a website.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#60

Post by nearbuy »

brigadier132 wrote: post #42
gklitz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see what you mean. Europe should force the US to divest from Facebook and have it transferred fully to European owners.

The US is following a tit for tat strategy. Which European companies has the US forced to divest their holdings to justify the action you're proposing?

Which US companies has China forced to divest their holdings?
Post reply on HN