941–950 of 1001 posts
I'm very late to this - how do you ban something on the internet? Can't they just keep operating and people will learn how to sideload the app or use a VPN to get it or whatever they need to do? Presumably it will mean some friction but couldn't the company just call the bluff?
Who do you think controls VPN? Do you still trust VPNs?
What does this mean for their US employees, their job security, and even office morale?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't the US prove it's better than China by its self-consistent actions with its espoused virtues of freedom of the press?
TikTok isn’t a news organization. It’s an entertainment platform. I don’t understand the people coming out of the woodworks saying this is suppressing “freedom of the press” or speech. Set up your own domain, get a VPS, upload your trash to VPS. There ya go, no more “censorship”. Oh wait , you don’t want to do the work to set this up? Sounds like a personal problem.
I don't remember the First Amendment distinguishing between free speech that informs and that which entertains.
Most news on television is selected for its entertainment value. Does that give the government more power to regulate it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, let's have other countries doing the same to Meta, Google, Microsoft and the likes. They all collect the data and send them to a foreign country (USA). They also use their algorithms to manipulate public meaning and to censor opposite opinions. Oh, and a US company spaying foreign citizens in not only legal in the USA, but also required.
Frankly... other countries should probably consider this IF they have an adversarial relationship with the US. And they already do -- neither China nor Russia allow Meta services in their countries. Nor do they allow most of Google's services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, let's have other countries doing the same to Meta, Google, Microsoft and the likes. They all collect the data and send them to a foreign country (USA). They also use their algorithms to manipulate public meaning and to censor opposite opinions. Oh, and a US company spaying foreign citizens in not only legal in the USA, but also required.
Frankly... other countries should probably consider this IF they have an adversarial relationship with the US. And they already do -- neither China nor Russia allow Meta services in their countries. Nor do they allow most of Google's services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole thing is baffling to me. What are you talking about? What enemy? I would rather someone in China has my information than my own government. China has no power over me; my own government does. I don’t care if china knows whether I like cheesecake better than blueberry pie. They’re interested in monitoring their own citizens, im sure- for the same reasons our own government agencies and corporate behemoths m…
Commerce is not zero sum. When done right both parties gain something. But China’s ambitions directly counter those of the United States. They’re propping up Russia against Ukraine for example. Use of heavy state subsidies and lack of environmental controls mean they can flood the world with cheap solar destroying the incentives for local production. When all the world is dependent on China for something they then ho…
That's a funny argument, given that the same piece of legislation with the TikTok "ban" also includes a(nother) $60.8 billion package for Ukraine [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/us/politics/senate-aid-pa...
Can someone convince me that, as a Canadian, China poses a greater threat to me, my country, or global security, than the US does? Because I have a hard time buying into the "China's the big bad" narrative when America does everything they do.
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-...
if you've been to China, you'll know that they ban all western products: facebook, google, etc etc and replaced them with their own variants. If they want to run around free-range without any restriction with their own products then they should respond by loosening restrictions in their own country. This is an absolute no-brainer. If you want Tik Tok in the US, lower your middle finger. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. Because you're seeing tiktok as a product, not as a community of millions of people. There are tens of thousands of small family-owned businesses that are only able to survive because of Tiktok. For a lot of the younger crowd, Tiktok is part of social culture. Cutting out a part of someone's life like that is not a decision that should be taken lightly at all. Peace.
The fact that people have become dependent is no good argument for keeping the platform around.
And, with that said, if TikTok disappears - a new platform fill its void, as well as other platforms absorbing users. If there's a demand, someone will supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should other countries do the same with US companies? US government regularly (ab)uses FISA to get data on foreign nationals: https://transparency.meta.com/reports/government-data-reques... > Parallel to this we need a federal national data privacy law that protects us but also cracks down on the huge industry of data brokers selling Americans’ data to anyone that has cash. And also dismantle the law where the US can…
It is called a fortified democracy. And absolute democracy like the Weimarer Republik is a dangerous thing. All modern democracies are fortified these days. And it is good that they are. And yes if the US is caught with the hand in the cookie jar the nation in question is not happy, but there is a difference: Spying is passive and not influencing the democratic process of the nation or disrupting it. The concern with…
There's a difference between "Hey, France, we would like this info on a known criminal" and "U.S.-based companies have to turn over all data on any person regardless of that data location or the nationality of the person in question".
That's basically the basis for both Schrems I and Schrems II.
Edit: See also CLOUD Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act
--- start quote ---
The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil
--- end quote ---