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

Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

rubio.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 445 posts

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#221

Post by stale2002 »

mrtksn wrote: post #16
varispeed wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State run apps that are designed to "nudge" and manipulate population at a large scale, should be classified as weapons and banned. This is not a regular app, but part of information warfare China is engaged in with the West.

The US is known for involvement in the policies of other nations and even organising coups etc. With documented access of the American government into the American tech giants, I don't have reason to believe that Instagram is any different than TikTok. What makes you think that CIA didn't infiltrate Meta or made a deal to manipulate political situation in its friends and foes? What makes you believe that they won't w…

[flagged]

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#222

Post by jpalawaga »

pseudolus wrote: post #79

"TikTok is digital fentanyl that’s addicting Americans, collecting troves of their data, and censoring their news." Is the conclusion that all forms of digital fentanyl should be banned or just Chinese ones? Because the reality is there's nothing too exceptional about TikTok's underlying algorithms. Will lawmakers be willing enact legislation against companies marketing similar "digital fentanyl" but that are America…

I think it's less about chinese, and more about foreign power.

if russia made tiktok, I think you'd see a similar response.

given what we know about how people's attention works on these apps, and how impressionable people turn out being, I can understand how putting that power in the hands of another state could be problematic.

That being said, it's also problematic for US-owned entities. They just get a by because capitalism, and because we're still figuring out what social media guard rails would even look like. Foreign ownership/control could be an obvious one.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#223

Post by dr-detroit »

mrtksn wrote: post #16
varispeed wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State run apps that are designed to "nudge" and manipulate population at a large scale, should be classified as weapons and banned. This is not a regular app, but part of information warfare China is engaged in with the West.

The US is known for involvement in the policies of other nations and even organising coups etc. With documented access of the American government into the American tech giants, I don't have reason to believe that Instagram is any different than TikTok. What makes you think that CIA didn't infiltrate Meta or made a deal to manipulate political situation in its friends and foes? What makes you believe that they won't w…

No post body was provided.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#225

Post by LarryMullins »

jzmorganchase wrote: post #106
babypuncher wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ban TikTok by name and not by legislating away the specific bad things it does? I don't see anything in this legislation that would affect Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts, both of which are using their own engagement-focused algorithm for recommending content. If being addicting is the reason we don't like TikTok, then why are we OK with it when a domestic company does it? Because Facebook lobbyists don't want…

Because the biggest concern is still Chinese ownership of US customer data. Not just the addictive features within the app.

> Because the biggest concern is still Chinese ownership of US customer data.

This legislation doesn't ban all Chinese government controlled apps that users might share their data with, only those that are social media specifically. If users cannot view content generated by other users, then it isn't social media and isn't banned by this bill. If the app doesn't sell digital advertising space, then it isn't social media (according to this bill) and isn't banned.

A Chinese government "backup app" that lets you upload all your documents to a server in China would presumably not be banned by this bill because it lacks those social media features. Maybe it would be banned by another law, but not this one. Or consider a Chinese "keyboard app", that logs everything you type. That's not social media, so this bill doesn't ban it.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#227

Post by teg4n_ »

spamizbad wrote: post #173
mrtksn wrote: post #7

Why not regulate how the data is used or stored, like the EU does, but ban? I'm really hoping this doesn't become a reality because if it does, we will end up with partitioned internet and stagnation. People often forget that the US companies are foreign entity for most of the worlds population and with the WikiLeaks revelations we know for a fact that the US government has access to the data of American tech compani…

SV failed to build social media products that appeal to Gen-Z so this is the "plan B". The only reason why TikTok is getting banned is because its popular. And the only reason why its popular is because US-based entrepreneurs seem to struggle building products that connect with users under the age of 30. The irony is there was a product, Vine, that filled this niche but it was ultimately killed by Facebook (who promo…

Vine was shut down before TikTok even launched.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#228

Post by MBCook »

dmonitor wrote: post #215
MBCook wrote: post #68

I don’t remember exactly when Congress seemed to figure out they could spell things by making backronyms of bill names, but boy I wish they’d stop. How about “Anti-TikTok Act of 2022”.

I kind of love how creative they get with it. It's just a fun thing they get to do.

They could have fun with it, but it mostly seems so performative to me.

Make a pro-waterfowl bill called the POND Act? Sure. That’s kind of fun.

Make a voter ID bill called the SAVE FREEDOM FROM SCAMS Act? That’s what I’m tired of.

I do understand SB 1589 isn’t exactly memorable. Just don’t make it look like you’re trying to hard? Maybe it’s like comedy in that way.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#229

Post by jorvi »

filoleg wrote: post #219
spamizbad wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SV failed to build social media products that appeal to Gen-Z so this is the "plan B". The only reason why TikTok is getting banned is because its popular. And the only reason why its popular is because US-based entrepreneurs seem to struggle building products that connect with users under the age of 30. The irony is there was a product, Vine, that filled this niche but it was ultimately killed by Facebook (who promo…

> Vine [...] filled this niche but it was ultimately killed by Facebook (who promoted Tiktok because they didn't want Vine making inroads with their users) and Twitter (by not developing it further). Agreed on the twitter part, but the FB part feels like a pure conspiracy at best, and is just factually provable to be false. For one, Vine was killed off in September 2017, which is the same month that TikTok became ava…

TikTok was available internationally for a very long time already, just under a different name. ‘Early’ TikTok was nothing but a rebrand of musical.ly

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#230

Post by kube-system »

LarryMullins wrote: post #183
kube-system wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This legislation does not ban TikTok by name. It: > [prohibits] all transactions from any social media company in, or under the influence of, China, Russia, and several other foreign countries of concern. (After a quick read of the bill, it sounds like it may also ban VK. Although, it is already sanctioned.)

Check page 4. This legislation provides a list of companies which are social media companies. TikTok, Bytedance and any company that may be owned by either of those are the companies listed. What other social media companies from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela might they have explicitly listed as a social media company? There are probably some.. maybe Yandex has some social media? WeChat? Regardles…

Of course, TikTok is clearly the impetus for the bill. My point is that it isn't a bill that only applies to TikTok.
Post reply on HN