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

141–150 of 224 posts

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

#141

Post by pcdoodle »

staticman2 wrote: post #139

Why are the Hacker News comments on this so different than when this topic came up a few years ago? I feel like a few years ago this site was inundated with posts arguing largely "Anyone anywhere on earth should be able to do business in the U.S. and own U.S. subsidary companies, no exceptions." These seem largely absent today.

As HN garners eyeballs and also being an election year, I would suppose PR elements would bleed through the comments.

I started coming here about 5-8 years ago because of the comments section usually having insider or wicked smart people and their viewpoints.

You did the right thing by asking this question. It might be downvoted but we can all see something and say something.

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

#142

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

staticman2 wrote: post #139

Why are the Hacker News comments on this so different than when this topic came up a few years ago? I feel like a few years ago this site was inundated with posts arguing largely "Anyone anywhere on earth should be able to do business in the U.S. and own U.S. subsidary companies, no exceptions." These seem largely absent today.

Who was president a few years ago? Who was banning it a few years ago?

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

#143

Post by _chu1 »

mrjin wrote: post #136
CBarkleyU wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The West was greedy and saw a trillion dollar opportunity in welcoming China into the WTO in 2000 and gave China massive leeway (this is my opinion, and probably not a majority opinion). In my opinion (only speaking for Germany, as I follow mostly the politics here) nobody was very keen on asking questions and making demand when the Chinese were producing our shit for pennies on the dollar but buying our premium Merc…

There would no problems at all if China continues to make shirts, shoes etc... But China started to make some high end stuff, such as Computers, and it did those so well that it could probably render US competitors irrelevant in the next a couple of decades. So all drama started.

No, it hasn't. Never seen anything relatively nice from a Chinese company, even when it's another one of their piles of manure with a different name like OnePlus.

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

#144

Post by chaos_emergent »

_chu1 wrote: post #143
mrjin wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would no problems at all if China continues to make shirts, shoes etc... But China started to make some high end stuff, such as Computers, and it did those so well that it could probably render US competitors irrelevant in the next a couple of decades. So all drama started.

No, it hasn't. Never seen anything relatively nice from a Chinese company, even when it's another one of their piles of manure with a different name like OnePlus.

In consumer drones, DJI is the undisputed champion.

In consumer 3D printers, Bambu has revolutionized the market.

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

#145

Post by ajmurmann »

krapp wrote: post #128
ajmurmann wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about foreign ideas. It's about a foreign, arguably hostile, government having control over what gets amplified and what gets hidden. I don't think anyone would have an issue with an official CCP account posting CCP positions on social media platforms they don't control. Those things are very, very different!

Unless you're arguing the CCP is going to force TikTok's algorithm to amplify Chinese propaganda, the algorithm is probably going to work the way it does everywhere, by optimizing for engagement by showing content similar to what a user already prefers. I'm not aware of evidence of that, though, beyond the circumstantial evidence of people claiming American leftist activism must the result of CCP brainwashing through…

> Unless you're arguing the CCP is going to force TikTok's algorithm to amplify Chinese propaganda

Yes, that's my concern. We don't know the algorithms and IMO the risk is too high, given China's other efforts at propaganda. At least Twitter added community notes, but that's somewhat secondary given the algorithms potentially controlled by a hostile government.

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

#146

Post by filoleg »

staticman2 wrote: post #139

Why are the Hacker News comments on this so different than when this topic came up a few years ago? I feel like a few years ago this site was inundated with posts arguing largely "Anyone anywhere on earth should be able to do business in the U.S. and own U.S. subsidary companies, no exceptions." These seem largely absent today.

> These seem largely absent today.

I still hold the same stance today, but I am just tired of arguing for it on HN.

I noticed the same thing with the prevailing opinion on the issue changing on HN as well. However, it wasnt because there are better arguments for the ban now or some new relevant info got discovered that would affect it.

Nope, it literally devolved into tit-for-tat arguments only, except this pretty much makes the US lose any high ground here. For people who dont see how maintaining the high ground in this specific scenario[0] is very advantageous and cheap for the US, I don’t have much to add that wasnt already discussed to death in all the previous HN threads on this.

P.S. It sucks I even feel the need to say this, but no, I dont support the chinese government and have zero affiliation with it whatsoever (at least none that I am aware of lol). I do have a lot of respect for the country itself and their people. However, my respect for the country and their people is not relevant to my opinions on absolutely anything related to policymaking.

0. No, I dont believe in this approach for every scenario ever involving the US and China. Of course, I do believe in reciprocal trade sanctions and tarrifs. I dont believe in those nearly as much when it comes to the digital realm, and especially not when it is something like TikTok.

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

#147

Post by rchaud »

staticman2 wrote: post #139

Why are the Hacker News comments on this so different than when this topic came up a few years ago? I feel like a few years ago this site was inundated with posts arguing largely "Anyone anywhere on earth should be able to do business in the U.S. and own U.S. subsidary companies, no exceptions." These seem largely absent today.

My opinion is still the same. If TikTok represents a threat, let the DOJ or FTC or whoever look into it and present a case to the courts and to the American public. Congress can get the voters on its side by writing a bill requiring stronger privacy measures on iOS/Android for example. But they won't because this would adversely impact Google and Facebook. A government ban is an authoritarian move that will inevitably expand to non-TikTok apps.

As for a broader change in opinion, I'd say that since 2022, American businesses have been happy to rally around protectionist policies in general (especially after the end of ZIRP) and that attitude feeds through to HN'ers that put a disproportionate amount of stock in things that people like Musk say.

For example, here's Musk admitting that Chinese EVs will dominate global market share without trade barriers:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

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

#148

Post by rchaud »

sschueller wrote: post #131
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why haven't they? Think hard.

Because the US can break Europe by removing our ability to use the dollar. We are completely attached to it like with swift or visa etc. Until we decouple from the dollar which will probably never happen as the US will prevent it, we will always be under the reign of the United States. China does not have this problem.

That is not the reason. The US wouldn't commit an unforced error in the battle to maintain global reserve currency status. There are too many countries that would be delighted to switch to non-USD options to conduct export/import transactions.

The issue is as old as the Cold War. Europe is dependent on the US' continued spending on its military machine to prop up NATO. For a deal that good, they're mostly OK with the trade-off of giving their privacy away to American tech companies.

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

#149

Post by rchaud »

kelnos wrote: post #75
PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #2

Not always a popular sentiment, but I don't really mind treating a country's companies as that country treats ours. I know this TikTok issue is far more nuanced (who the backers/owners are, how data is treated etc) of course.

Yeah, I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this move (and it surprises me somewhat that I feel this way). I think the only actual problem here is that the US government waited until a third to a half of the country was hooked on TikTok before taking action. The bigger issue is PR and optics, and weathering a backlash from those users when they can't use TikTok anymore. If TikTok was an obscure app that a few hundred…

What ownership structures do Apple and Tesla have to abide by China?

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

#150

Post by mindslight »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32
mindslight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really mind that per se. What I do mind is the government letting domestic companies run roughshod over the population with surveillance/influence for the past few decades, and then when a significant enough foreign company finally does it, focusing on that foreign company while continuing to ignore the longstanding deeper problem. Rather than focusing on TikTok, how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus…

> how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement (or even additional regulation) to stop this widespread bundling of client apps with publishing services? There isn’t public support for this. Remember the warrant requirement for FISA? Virtually nobody called their electeds in support (see my other comment [1]). Unless someone can show a general privacy bill isn’t a similar boondoggle, it’s not…

I don't get the point of half-cynicism. The fully cynical take is that this is just another inevitability in a long line of gradual steps of the unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex infiltrating our lives, having neutralized whatever democratic oversight there might have been via manufactured consent.

But the overall comment thread isn't just taking the development as a forgone conclusion and talking about technical mitigations, but rather still judging it on what ought to be. As such, I think it's worthwhile to point out that there is another straightforward approach that preserves individual liberty rather than undermining it. And back in the cynical context, this approach seemingly not being on the table is another data point supporting the cynicism.

Post reply on HN