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

House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#691

Post by chaostheory »

j_maffe wrote: post #459
User23 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's being described isn't an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. And tit for tat is the norm for international relations and has been since time immemorial. Usually it's relatively dull stuff, like if country A requires citizens of country B to have a visa to visit, country B will as a matter of course require citizens of country A to have visas to visit too.

So if China bans all American literature and news sources, the US should do the same? If China deports all Chinese Americans from their country, should the US do the same?

This isn’t a good analogy. This is about trade and not freedom or rights. The CCP, the owner of TikTok, is neither an individual nor a US citizen.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#692

Post by harkinian »

aaomidi wrote: post #632
harkinian wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Vox claim censorship. Is there something more credible, maybe AIPAC themselves publicly backing the TikTok ban, or some strong correlation between AIPAC contributions and House votes on the bill?

We have this: https://twitter.com/PamKeithFL/status/1767922368997970380 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-... https://www.newarab.com/news/us-pro-israel-jewish-group-back... Most of the time the lobbying isn't happening out in public. But once it takes momentum, the lobbies usually start publicly backing it.

The first two don't say much. The third one about JFNA's letter to Congress is key. Didn't cite the primary source for some reason, but it matches: https://cdn.fedweb.org/fed-1/1/Jewish%2520Federation%2520Let...

"A vote for HR 7521 is a vote against antisemitism."

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#693

Post by badrequest »

zachmu wrote: post #530
jrockway wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of…

Tiktok isn't "some website", it is partially owned and controlled by the CCP, which influences what content gets shown to Americans. A majority of zoomers get most of their news and information primarily from this platform, which again is under the influence of a hostile foreign government. (TikTok also spies on US citizens for the CCP, but let's keep this restricted to the free speech argument about the ban). We act…

Yeah, we should only tolerate domestic propaganda outlets.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#694

Post by kenjackson »

code_biologist wrote: post #658
bugglebeetle wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you honestly believed this to be true, you would be arguing for a ban on all social media, as like half of Instagram is just reposts of TikTok content and is otherwise mind-numbingly equivalent to the service.

I believe it to be true and I'd like broad, heavy restriction of algorithmically targeted content but that would go against the interests of massive companies. Not gonna happen. I'll take the win in this instance though, where national security concerns and congress' desire to look like it's doing something align to make a small positive change.

How is this a win at all though? Especially now. Every kid I know says Reels is a perfectly good alternative now (it wasn't two years ago). It's making a statement about something, but it's not helping any of the problems you noted.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#695

Post by chaostheory »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #675
codekaze wrote: post #213

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete…

Reciprocity in this case is supposed to mean "We allow your companies in as long as they follow the local laws, and you will allow our companies in as long as they follow the local laws." TikTok is following American law, which is significantly more permissible in terms of speech than China. American social media giants thought it was too damaging to follow Chinese law and voluntarily retreated (Google), played the g…

Google tried to follow the law, but how can they comply when CCP laws mercurial & vague which is the opposite of EU & US law? As for meta, why would our people and companies want to knowingly participate in the genocide (not cultural genocide but full on genocide) of the Uighurs in Xinjiang?

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#696

Post by esoterica »

cryptonector wrote: post #580
wongarsu wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on…

The rights acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution are rights of U.S. Persons (citizens, nationals, and permanent residents). They are not all rights of non-U.S. Persons, though some, like the Fifth Amendment, clearly are rights of all Persons. For example, if you're a tourist accused of committing a crime in the U.S. you do have a right to counsel and a right to not self-incriminate, but also you don't h…

If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens? The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#697

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hellojesus wrote: post #527
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely restricted distribution of state-controlled news. We didn’t block it. Same as, even if ByteDance refuses to divest, this bill wouldn’t block TikTok from being accessed on the web. It’s just taking it out of American app stores and off American hosting services.

What do you think will happen when all Americans start side-loading it?

> What do you think will happen when all Americans start side-loading it?

We will have a new debate.

Nobody wants to kill TikTok. There is simply way too much money in it.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#698

Post by LargeWu »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #90
andiareso wrote: post #13

I'm a big proponent of free speech and the first amendment, but I agree with the reasonings for banning it or forcing US owners. China most definitely has their hands in the data that TikTok amasses and given its popularity it's not an insignificant risk to U.S. citizens. We all know how easy it is to manipulate users... aka Cambridge Analytica. It'll be interesting to see what legal challenges come up if the bill pa…

> China most definitely has their hands in the data that TikTok amasses and given its popularity it's not an insignificant risk to U.S. citizens. At least according to their website, it seems like US data does not leave US data warehouses: https://usds.tiktok.com/our-approach-to-keeping-u-s-data-sec... I don’t know the details of course but if China wants the data there are umpteen companies who engage in data broker…

I think there's probably no way we can trust the data isn't going to China. This is China we're talking about.

But I don't even think the real problem is videos of high school girls doing choreographed dances going to China. The problem is psyops and disinformation. I think it's much more likely TikTok could be, and probably has been, used to sow political discord. It's not hard to imagine the Chinese government "suggesting" to TikTok that they alter their algorithm to promote content that, say, discourages people from voting, or promoting political violence, or eschewing vaccinations.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#699

Post by Buttons840 »

calibas wrote: post #657
segasaturn wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a mistake for TikTok to ask Americans to participate in their representative democracy? Do we not remember when Google and Facebook blacked out their sites to stop SOPA from passing, how is TikTok's notification any different?

The US government is accusing the CCP of using TikTok to manipulate democracy. TikTok responded by attempting to manipulate democracy. They did they very thing the government trying to ban them is scared of. Doesn't seem like a smart move to me, I guess we'll see how it plays outs

It might not result in maximum ByteDance profits, but TikTok's notification will help a generation of "youths" realize the political process affects them and help them care about technology censorship issues. This is a good thing.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#700

Post by segasaturn »

calibas wrote: post #657
segasaturn wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a mistake for TikTok to ask Americans to participate in their representative democracy? Do we not remember when Google and Facebook blacked out their sites to stop SOPA from passing, how is TikTok's notification any different?

The US government is accusing the CCP of using TikTok to manipulate democracy. TikTok responded by attempting to manipulate democracy. They did they very thing the government trying to ban them is scared of. Doesn't seem like a smart move to me, I guess we'll see how it plays outs

Raising awareness about a bill in Congress and giving US citizens the tools to speak to their representatives about it isn't "manipulating democracy", it promotes democracy. That is a foundational part of how American democracy is supposed to work, the reps vote on bills but the citizens have the last word - if that's so unacceptable that lawmakers would change sides to ban TikTok in response then Americans should start making funeral preparations for their democracy, because it sounds like these lawmakers want their constituents to be docile, silent and ignorant.
Post reply on HN