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

TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#491

Post by zackmorris »

hbarka wrote: post #196

“Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), the author of the bill to ban TikTok, owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in Meta, one of TikTok's chief rivals. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) bought up to $50,000 worth of Meta stock last January before voting to ban TikTok in April." Exhibit 1. https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610?page=2

Here's a video from March 14, 2024 on how Mike Gallagher (R-WI), who sponsored the H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, accepted his largest campaign contributions from Palantir, Google, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):

https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/734642717587849...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 (in case of censorship)

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagh...

Looks like Steven Mnuchin, David Friedman and Yossi Cohen were also involved. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said that "we really have a TikTok problem", since it's acting to alchemize the left-right political divide into a young-old one.

The video says that pro-Palestine content is some of the most censored content there is, but despite that, a large number of TikTok users are supporting Palestine and questioning Israel's authority to continue hostilities. It suggests that silencing these objections to the Israel-Palestine conflict by preventing their discussion and spread is one of the primary motives for banning TikTok.

I'm deeply disappointed in members of the Democratic Party who voted for the TikTok ban, whose actions call into question the integrity of their party and its priorities. I'm not as surprised by the actions of the Republican Party, which historically has sided with the establishment (Meta and other social networks under US jurisdiction), but openly voting for censorship in the face of calls to protect free speech from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is suspect.

And I'm profoundly troubled by antisemitism and how whataboutism is clouding journalistic integrity. With derogatory comments about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and wokeism becoming more prevalent, we should be mindful of the slippery slope from oppressed to oppressor. This is why we must always call out injustice in all forms, even when it's inconvenient to do so, or risk sacrificing our principles and eventually our freedoms.

I'm reminded of the Paradox of Intolerance, that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#492

Post by Airodonack »

mrtksn wrote: post #12

Amazing stunt: The establishment tried to limit freedom of speech and Trump saved the day. Probably a pre-agreed sequence of events. Never mind that it was him who initially trued to ban it. Nevertheless a positive development.

This is such a fallacious, misdirecting argument. The speech itself was not targeted by the ban. It was the ownership. If the speech stayed the same then regulators would have been happy.

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#493

Post by copperx »

robswc wrote: post #10

The straight up "shout out" in the pop-up, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems "unprofessional." Ironically, it probably got them huge bonus points so they know what they're doing.

Ah, the propaganda GUI element. I distinctly remember covering it in my HCI class. Right between 'How to Design Intuitive Interfaces' and 'How to Influence Favorability Ratings with Popups.'

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#494

Post by bsimpson »

ripped_britches wrote: post #22

For those saying there’s no executive order yet or that Trump is not president yet, the point is that they received confirmation that there will be an executive order, meaning they can rely on a 90 day extension of non-enforcement. So while there is some irony with Trump having previously supported the ban, the practical reality is that he and Susquehanna and the Republicans all are winning big on this one, from a po…

[meta] why is this the only comment I can't vote on?

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#495

Post by cycrutchfield »

samr71 wrote: post #346
hcurtiss wrote: post #224

By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy," aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda? I sometimes cannot believe it's those who so loudly cry about threats to "democracy" that simultaneously take such a cynical view of the democratic process. Rather than tackle the narratives substantively, they'd argue about who gets to manipulate the…

I enjoy seeing HN independently rederive much of NRX thought via this situation. In unrelated news, anyone see that NYT interview with Yarvin yesterday?

The one where Curtis made a fool of himself and his poor understanding of history?

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#496

Post by galleywest200 »

JFingleton wrote: post #480
hackyhacky wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Trump was against Tiktok before he was for it. He was also against crypto currencies before he released his own.

[flagged]

Crypto is a very easy way to funnel bribes to the sitting president, who has immunity for actions taken in regards to "official actions".

> Hey, I bought $1,000,000,000 $TRUMP coin, can you ease up on $RegulationImpactingMe?

> Regulations are official actions, so sure I can take a look-see.

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#497

Post by Zanni »

bjourne wrote: post #146
sekai wrote: post #57

The people pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue are ignoring that no one was requiring TikTok to change their content at all. The law was written to allow for 0 impact on users if the CCP-connected parent company simply divested. Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company. Bu…

Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue: https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok... https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-scotus-tiktok-ban-violates... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre... It seems to me that they aren't "pretending" they honestly believe the issue is about free speech. Laws that does not explicitly curtail…

The ACLU hasn't been a credible defender of free speech in some time. (FIRE and EFF still credible.)

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#498

Post by mckenzba »

djcapelis wrote: post #132
sekai wrote: post #57

The people pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue are ignoring that no one was requiring TikTok to change their content at all. The law was written to allow for 0 impact on users if the CCP-connected parent company simply divested. Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company. Bu…

I’m not arguing it’s a restriction on TikTok’s speech or bytedance’s speech. It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access? The law doesn’t fine TikTok. The law fines the people who let me download an app…

Show me where it is an infringement of your 1st amendment right to a private platform? You’re free to criticize the government however you see fit, but you’re not guaranteed the right to a microphone and stage that isn’t yours. There are plenty of other communication channels you can use to express yourself. Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok, just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#499

Post by sillysaurusx »

sega_sai wrote: post #230

For the record -- the law for TikTok divestment was not passed on its own, but was instead included in the foreign aid (including Ukraine) package https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-... It is not clear if it would have passed if not that procedural trick... So one has to take this into account when considering 'bipartisan support' of the thing.

Thanks for this. It’s the first I’ve heard of it.

Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

#500

Post by Aunche »

bjourne wrote: post #146
sekai wrote: post #57

The people pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue are ignoring that no one was requiring TikTok to change their content at all. The law was written to allow for 0 impact on users if the CCP-connected parent company simply divested. Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company. Bu…

Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue: https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok... https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-scotus-tiktok-ban-violates... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre... It seems to me that they aren't "pretending" they honestly believe the issue is about free speech. Laws that does not explicitly curtail…

> Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does

You can say the same thing about an antitrust law that forces Alphabet to sell Youtube.

Post reply on HN