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

Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#471

Post by cowsup »

luyu_wu wrote: post #454

The thing that ticks me off is that there hasn't been conclusive evidence that actually justifies this ban. I'd be perfectly happy if the CIA came out with documents of how the data goes to China, but all I've seen is evidence to the contrary (e.g. servers in US, headquarters in SG etc). If I'm wrong, I'd gladly look at some linked articles of course.

There's no evidence one way or another. TikTok's servers are in the US, but, even if we audit their entire outbound connections, or get a warrant from their ISP to confirm no traffic has ever gone out to China... There's no surefire way of saying that an employee didn't just plug their laptop into the server, download data, and then ship it off to China later on.

Both the US government and TikTok/ByteDance are unable to prove their claims, and likely, neither one ever could. Even if TikTok showed 100% evidence that they've never done that, the US government would know that there's nothing stopping TikTok from doing it at a later date.

This legislation is the US government deciding that the risks are too great, and so they're willing to take the gamble and shut down a company that's potentially done nothing wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" is typically reserved for the judicial system, but this is a legislative decision; it'll be an interesting court case to determine if the US legislators are able to make these sorts of decisions outside of the judiciary.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#472

Post by coffeemug »

RIMR wrote: post #464
luyu_wu wrote: post #454

The thing that ticks me off is that there hasn't been conclusive evidence that actually justifies this ban. I'd be perfectly happy if the CIA came out with documents of how the data goes to China, but all I've seen is evidence to the contrary (e.g. servers in US, headquarters in SG etc). If I'm wrong, I'd gladly look at some linked articles of course.

There isn't really any evidence of the supposed threats we've heard about from Congress. It's pretty much bog-standard sinophobia / anti-communist scaremongering.

If any ideology or regimes espousing it have earned scaremongering, it's communism.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#473

Post by FpUser »

roody15 wrote: post #400
ThinkBeat wrote: post #372

I hope this will show the severity of threats countries face from social media and that things are no longer business as usual. Every European country /and/or EU/ECC as a block, as well as every other nation or block, should follow this up as soon as permitted to have all social media apps operated by a foreign country be subject to the same legislation. TikTok will have to sel to the US, Netherlands, France, Germany…

Hmm not sure I agree. It can be helpful to have access to social media that contains perspectives outside of the control of the country you live in. Sure will it be slanted or even outright propaganda ? Yes but this is still okay as we can teach people to critically think and make their own decisions. The idea that our “government” will curate content and sanctify what is true is simply dystopian. Citizen these socia…

>" Yes but this is still okay as we can teach people to critically think and make their own decisions."

Politicians will commit seppuku the minute it happens in their country. Independently thinking populace is their worst nightmare.

Luckily for them most people do not do that.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#475

Post by ok123456 »

mhardcastle wrote: post #411
returningfory2 wrote: post #38

The work "ban" is in scare quotes for a reason. The law doesn't ban TikTok. Rather, it bans TikTok from having Chinese owners. If the law stands, the end result will likely be that TikTok will be sold to US owners, rather than TikTok going away. It's surprising to me that this this pretty significant distinction has been glossed over both in media reporting and in general comments here on HN. To be clear, I'm not sup…

For what it's worth, "play money" betting site Manifold is currently at a 69% chance of sale versus 31% of shutting down. https://manifold.markets/mint/conditional-on-the-tiktok-ban-...

What about no sale yet they continue to operate because the ban is not enforceable either legally or technically?

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#476

Post by bogdan »

AlphaSite wrote: post #469
luyu_wu wrote: post #454

The thing that ticks me off is that there hasn't been conclusive evidence that actually justifies this ban. I'd be perfectly happy if the CIA came out with documents of how the data goes to China, but all I've seen is evidence to the contrary (e.g. servers in US, headquarters in SG etc). If I'm wrong, I'd gladly look at some linked articles of course.

If nothing else the ban on foreign ownership of Chinese companies alone feels like it justifies some reciprocal action. No US (or otherwise) company can operate in China, but the reverse is not true.

Exactly. It's unclear whether the primary goal of TikTok regulation is to genuinely safeguard young users or to prepare the public for further restrictions on other Chinese companies. Regardless, given China's advanced development beyond what many in the West perceive, I think it's important for western countries to start taking protective measures. TikTok is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#478

Post by aragonite »

AlphaSite wrote: post #469
luyu_wu wrote: post #454

The thing that ticks me off is that there hasn't been conclusive evidence that actually justifies this ban. I'd be perfectly happy if the CIA came out with documents of how the data goes to China, but all I've seen is evidence to the contrary (e.g. servers in US, headquarters in SG etc). If I'm wrong, I'd gladly look at some linked articles of course.

If nothing else the ban on foreign ownership of Chinese companies alone feels like it justifies some reciprocal action. No US (or otherwise) company can operate in China, but the reverse is not true.

> No US (or otherwise) company can operate in China

Not true taken literally, obviously; not true if taken as saying "only JVs are allowed" either. According to the Department of Commerce (https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=China-Establishing-a...):

> A large majority of new foreign investments in China are WFOEs [wholly foreign owned enterprises], rather than JVs. As Chinese legal entities, WFOEs experience greater independence than ROs, are allowed exclusive control over carrying out business activities while abiding by Chinese law and are granted intellectual and technological rights.

Also (https://arc-group.com/china-company-setup/):

> WFOE refers to a limited liability company that is 100% invested, owned by foreign investors, and independently operated. Almost 60% of foreign-owned companies are WFOEs, making it the most adopted business type. Famous multinational companies such as Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and General Electric are all examples of WFOEs.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#479

Post by neverokay »

luyu_wu wrote: post #454

The thing that ticks me off is that there hasn't been conclusive evidence that actually justifies this ban. I'd be perfectly happy if the CIA came out with documents of how the data goes to China, but all I've seen is evidence to the contrary (e.g. servers in US, headquarters in SG etc). If I'm wrong, I'd gladly look at some linked articles of course.

McCarthyism is back in style.

Re: Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

#480

Post by FpUser »

jtriangle wrote: post #352
returningfory2 wrote: post #38

The work "ban" is in scare quotes for a reason. The law doesn't ban TikTok. Rather, it bans TikTok from having Chinese owners. If the law stands, the end result will likely be that TikTok will be sold to US owners, rather than TikTok going away. It's surprising to me that this this pretty significant distinction has been glossed over both in media reporting and in general comments here on HN. To be clear, I'm not sup…

It bans American companies from providing services that distribute, maintain or update any sufficiently popular apps where a company is headquartered in, or has more than a 20% ownership share of the company held, in a country that has been determined to be a foreign adversary. It is much, much broader than a 'tiktok ban', it applies to any company that fits that criteria. So to put it bluntly, if the CCP bought 20%…

>"passing a law that looks good in news headlines"

It does not look good at all. It just shows that they have no trust in their own citizens. And maybe for a reason.

Post reply on HN