TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users • Hacker News Board

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

#671

Post by pixl97 » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:27 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #507

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…

Interesting position. I wonder if another country could just force Musk to divest himself of Twitter in the same way. Could solve a lot of headaches that way. Maybe the EU could force the issue.

Depends on the political power of the entity and it's existing laws.

In your example, Musk could stop the app in the EU, much like TT is/was doing.

With this said, is the EU law written like the long standing US laws that give the TT law the power it has? If they have to enact new laws that would conflict with its member states wishes/dealings with other nations, expect it go to nowhere.

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

#672

Post by aaronharnly » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:28 PM UTC

nico wrote: post #661

Brystephor wrote: post #34

What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it? Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

The law did not require them to suspend the service.

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

#673

Post by space_fountain » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:28 PM UTC

nico wrote: post #661

Brystephor wrote: post #34

What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it? Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed

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

#674

Post by space_fountain » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:30 PM UTC

aaronharnly wrote: post #672

nico wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

The law did not require them to suspend the service.

The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally

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

#675

Post by runlevel1 » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:32 PM UTC

mrlonglong wrote: post #566

Executive orders cannot supersede or go against the law. The courts would quite rightly shut him down.

Yes, but the president is the head of the executive branch, which includes the DoJ. He can simply instruct them not to prosecute.

That does leave companies like Oracle, who TikTok uses to host their content, in a weird position where they could be fined by future administrations for continuing to provide them service now.

However, the law does give the president the ability to give them a one-time 90 day stay of execution. So, theoretically, they could repeal the law in the next 3 months.

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

#676

Post by pixl97 » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:33 PM UTC

vitorgrs wrote: post #641

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…

What would happen if Brazil says they would ban X if Elon Musk didn't divest from it?

X would be blocked in Brazil.

Now, expect Musk and his billions to push lobbying weight around to ensure Brazil paid dearly for it.

International politics is a treacherous game.

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

#677

Post by YurgenJurgensen » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:37 PM UTC

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…

The US need not restrict any of your speech. You’re not directly communicating with any of TikTok’s users when you post to it, TikTok is. In the Internet age, even apparent one-way communication is handshakes upon handshakes. Consider this: You’re free to send whatever messages you want to ByteDance. They’re just not allowed to reply (or have anyone reply on their behalf). The app is a useless binary blob if it can’t set up a TLS connection.

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

#678

Post by ceejayoz » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:39 PM UTC

nico wrote: post #661

Brystephor wrote: post #34

What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it? Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.

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

#679

Post by margalabargala » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:39 PM UTC

aaronharnly wrote: post #672

nico wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

The law did not require them to suspend the service.

The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.

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

#680

Post by glenstein » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 11:39 PM UTC

space_fountain wrote: post #673

nico wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed

That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.

If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.