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

Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

congress.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 741 posts

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#471

Post by pclmulqdq »

psychlops wrote: post #447
threeseed wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) The government can do more than one thing at a time. b) There is zero appetite from the GOP for gun control. Until that changes the status quo persists. c) Information about US citizens (which can be used to manipulate them) being handed over to the Chinese government is something that the government should be concerned about.

> b) There is zero appetite from the GOP for gun control. Until that changes the status quo persists. There have been many years of Democratic control where they didn't prioritize gun control. The status quo persists for some other reasons, not just the GOP bogeyman.

Just like legalizing abortion, the Dems haven't wanted to touch guns (ostensibly) because it radicalizes the other side.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#472

Post by [deleted] »

revscat wrote: post #301
chimeracoder wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That have a million or more users and are owned by adversaries of the United States. No, it is not only restricted to services that are owned by adversaries of the United States. The text of the bill is very clear and much broader.

(10) ICTS COVERED HOLDING ENTITY.—The term “ICTS covered holding entity” means any entity that— (A) owns, controls, or manages information and communications technology products or services; and (B) (i) has not less than 1,000,000 United States-based annual active users at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President; or (ii) for which more than 1,000,0…

[deleted]

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#473

Post by nanidin »

n0tahacker wrote: post #442
gonehome wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data isn’t the risk, it’s more the ability for CCP to leverage influence. https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ Dialing up things to cause unrest, dialing down stuff critical of the CCP. It’s not an issue about data, or even an issue about speech, it’s an issue of ownership of a media company by an adversary that will weaponize it against you. Who controls and owns media companies is a reasonable national…

I think this attitude is wrong. A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda op in foreign states like Radio Free Asia etc. If you are banning foreign media in your own country, you are doing the same as China in the end. Why not establish a great firewall?

A well informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. Fake news and undue outside influence absolutely must be protected against.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#475

Post by jedberg »

TeeMassive wrote: post #464
jedberg wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's unconstitutional to make a law that targets a specific person or company. They have to be subtle and use generic terms to describe who is affected by the law in a way where TikTok ends up being the only company that qualifies right now. It's also good practice because it prevents TikTok from just making a new company that is exactly the same. Edit: changed illegal to unconstitutional because someone belo…

Explain Coca-Cola and Walt Disney

They are big companies that have lobbied for laws that benefit them and had them written in ways that benefit them the most?

I’m not even sure what you’re talking about.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#476

Post by yed »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #465
yed wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the VPN concern comes from a misreading of what is meant by "holding". A "holding" in this context is a financial asset like a stock. The section you highlighted: > (B) includes any other holding, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. This is referring to intermediary holding companies intended to…

While it wouldn't blanket ban VPNs, a VPN is fairly clearly a "communication technology" and a provider could be targeted by this bill. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even need to do anything malicious, just be large enough and have some malicious users.

The provider would have to be controlled by China or other designated foreign adversary, and they would indeed have to be doing something determined to be a serious threat to the US.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#477

Post by collaborative »

Mezzie wrote: post #391
alexose wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's not a binary choice. Parents can do a better job monitoring their kids and the state can make it mildly harder for kids to spend all day on social media.

We could also educate the parents/adults. I feel like a lot of these issues come from the fact that the newer generation(s) have so much more knowledge of what they're using than their elders. Society has changed things and implemented safeguards in the past (seatbelts, driving laws, etc.) Yet for some reason the social media discussion always ends up only presenting two options: Censorship or anarchy.

Education has a low chance of success on adults. However, kids can be educated. But social media prevents this

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#478

Post by gonehome »

Hilarity1 wrote: post #470
gonehome wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data isn’t the risk, it’s more the ability for CCP to leverage influence. https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ Dialing up things to cause unrest, dialing down stuff critical of the CCP. It’s not an issue about data, or even an issue about speech, it’s an issue of ownership of a media company by an adversary that will weaponize it against you. Who controls and owns media companies is a reasonable national…

TikTok is one vehicle for influence - and there are hundreds. Millions use TikTok. To them, you’re not removing their “adversary”, you’re removing their fun. From the outside, this looks like the United States is controlling the media - something it’s already accused of by 1/2 of Americans. This action will reiterate that for some and make it true for more.

New accounts on issues like this always make me wary of the 50cent party (kind of a case-in-point example of the kind of nation state influence operations and risk). [0]

It shouldn’t have gotten to this level, but it’s where we are. Users will move to reels or something else that takes its place without the national security risk.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#479

Post by eointierney »

withinboredom wrote: post #164

Maybe someone will scroll all the way down to this comment. Probably not. For half a decade, I have lived outside of the US, and I've watched as it has fallen to shit in slow motion. I make a decent chunk of income in USD and this terrifies me... but this. This move saddens me. There are only so many hours that congress has to make real decisions ... and this, this is what they spent their time on? Talking about how…

Oh my gosh, I feel for you. I'm Irish, still in Ireland, a lifelong pacifist, and have nothing but the deepest respect for your duty and honour to and for your country. And from a distance I must agree with you.

Yes, in the supposed Great Game this is simply a mole being whacked, a performative exercise that does nothing to solve any of the problems and shoddily disguises these in puerile emnity.

Yet and all, The US Senate is still and nonetheless one of the most powerful and wayward legislative bodies in our species' history. You have a direct part in your Senate, albeit at the length of another's arm, and so you still have this power.

I'm at risk of rambling, but you are still a citizen of one of the greatest nations, and you should have more than hope. I take your two bucks and give it to a beggar, as their need is greater than either of ours.

Please, if you are willing and brave, and as you have served your country we know you are willing and brave, get into Politics. Good people working together is the best way of making things better

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#480

Post by sebzim4500 »

throwaway29812 wrote: post #262
gorwell wrote: post #214

Did anyone notice that the bill doesn't even mention Tiktok??? If it's a "bill to ban TikTok" why doesn't it name the target? It's a red herring. This is the Patriot Act for the Internet. Ironically they're copying the CCP playbook and want the same level of sweeping control with the implementation of a Great Firewall. It's extremely broad and includes everything connected to the internet that has >1M users in a year…

> the same level of sweeping control with the implementation of a Great Firewall The same level ?

Genuine question: can violating the Great Firewall lead to a 20 year prison sentence? What about a $1M fine?
Post reply on HN