Earlier quoted context omitted.
TikTok could just release a web app
They already do, all they gotta do is take out the redirect to App popup and voila.
It's not amazing, just like most web apps from big tech.
US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
71–80 of 769 posts
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#72As grating as this is to freedom of expression, I’ve been annoyed enough times by ‘tok’ers doing crap like I dunno, licking ice cream buckets in supermarkets, I’m also looking forward to that going away for a few months till the next thing replaces it. Unfortunately, this is pretty bad precedent. While I love my country, these sorts of decisions are as federal level are pretty scary and I question whether the governm…
Counter point, how is letting the primary adversarial power (which happens to be an authoritarian regime) massively influence the political views of the future generation a good idea? It sounds to me like the federal government is doing its job here.
I guess because there will always be avenues for powers to influence people - rather than slapping a bandaid over the problem, we should address the root cause - a credulous population that refuses to think critically about the media it consumes.
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#73Would this sort of targeted app ban by the federal govt be the first of its kind in US? Without any arguments of the pros or cons, the precedent I think is worthy of some consideration.
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#74I'm not sure how exactly the First Amendment works, so someone please correct me, but does banning a platform constitute a violation if individuals can choose other platforms?
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#75Would this sort of targeted app ban by the federal govt be the first of its kind in US? Without any arguments of the pros or cons, the precedent I think is worthy of some consideration.
I think Grindr underwent a forced divestiture from its Chinese owners due to US gov as well.
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#76I'm not sure how exactly the First Amendment works, so someone please correct me, but does banning a platform constitute a violation if individuals can choose other platforms?
"It depends" (like every legal question).
It's possible to violate free speech rights by banning a platform even when their are alternatives. Most relevantly to this situation, the platform itself is most likely engaging in speech of its own by choosing what to repeat of what other people have said (i.e. it's choice of algorithm). If the platform was being banned for that speech (and that speech didn't happen to fall under an exception) that would be problematic.
It's also clearly possible to ban a platform under other circumstances. For instance banning a platform that was used by various parties for (protected!) speech, but was also being used for money laundering...
TikTok is a complicated case. It is on the edge of banning a platform for protected speech in so much as it is concerned with a US corporations (relevant because speech by non-americans from outside of the US is not protected) choice of recommendation algorithm, except the algorithm is really dictated by a Chinese corporation under the direct influence of the CPP. There are also however very compelling legitimate concerns the government has, such as the CPP's espionage interests, and the CPP's (not-protected, as a foreign government!) influence over TikTok's speech.
It's also notable in this case that the platform is being banned only so long as the foreign adversary refuses to divest. TikTok is free to continue operating in the US, so long as it isn't under China's (an entity without free speech rights) control.
I'd encourage you to read the appeals court ruling for a much more nuanced, and authoritative, take then mine: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
China doesn’t officially block any American social media. If you ask your Chinese ISP they say it’s just technical problems. There is probably a list somewhere that is considered a state secret, like the list of banned words and banned books. You do not want to cross China’s broad state secrets law by even pretending to know. Anyways, China should feel proud that this is the first social media app from China that the…
We shouldn't get into a dick measuring contest over who hides more from their citizens.
That the Chinese have used our brain worm factories against us, infiltrated our domestic surveillance and wiretapping systems, and let themselves into our completely volitional infrastructure backdoors should only stimulate us to ask why we created such things in the first place.
Where's our canary, again?
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#781) Excellent way to teach millions of people about sideloading overnight. This could be a big win for Android (where sideloading is easy) vs. iPhone were sideloading is impossible (? or only possible only with an annual dev license?) 2) Will this affect apps like CapCut and Lemon8 too?
TikTok could just release a web app
Which they have but that can just be blocked as well. Sure you will be able to access it with workarounds but most people won’t.
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
So banning a public square has nothing to do with free speech? "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
"The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok_v._Garland
They've determined that it's not a violation of free speech because China, and that it's not a bill of attainder because China. You could replace "China" with anything.
What does it mean to be a "foreign adversary?" When did voters get a say in that? When Democrats (and every media outlet) were accusing Trump of being a secret Russian agent, and people who supported him of being traitors, would it have been legal (and not a "punishment" but a "prophylactic" as the appeals court said about TikTok) for the legislature to limit their free speech by name?
Re: US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19
#80As grating as this is to freedom of expression, I’ve been annoyed enough times by ‘tok’ers doing crap like I dunno, licking ice cream buckets in supermarkets, I’m also looking forward to that going away for a few months till the next thing replaces it. Unfortunately, this is pretty bad precedent. While I love my country, these sorts of decisions are as federal level are pretty scary and I question whether the governm…
The problem is probably not what videos the platform hosts itself (as long as those are legal themselves), but having the recommendation algorithm controlled by a foreign power.
Maybe taking over the recommendations algorithm (or banning any kind of algorithmic feed other than chronogical) would have sparked less concerns. But changing the algorithm to make it less addictive would probably effectively kill the platform through loss of user interest.