House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app • Hacker News Board

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

#771

Post by amou234 » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 8:54 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #749

amou234 wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What most of the posters in this thread don't realize is that US is effectively at war with China. China is working in front of the scenes to be the major funder of Russia's war [1] against Europe, which is US's ally amongst the coalition of democratic countries. China is working behind the scenes to stop the supply of artillery shells to Ukraine. [2]. and it is increasingly and more visibly supplying Russia with mil…

Even if that's true, if we suspend our constitutional rights to conduct a war, then what's the point in having them? I thought they were inalienable. Imagine trying to suspend the 2nd amendment because of school shootings. The reason kinda doesn't matter when rights are on the line.

Many times constitution was suspended in US during wartime [1]. Also, school shooting has a very low likelihood of causing US to collapse. Losing an adversarial war against a rival of similar size with nuclear weapons and a brainwashing mechanism via TikTok will. I for one do not want to live in a world controlled by China, where the state can weld me inside my apartment [2], find random reasons to jail me then extract organs from me [3] or many of the atrocious things China does.

[1]https://www.military.com/history/6-times-martial-law-was-dec...

[2]https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1703503427818

[3] https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-killing-...

[3]

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

#772

Post by mise_en_place » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #400

mise_en_place wrote: post #389

This type of protectionism could really backfire on the United States. We are a heavy net importer, and I don’t think our Congressmen understand what kind of can of worms this opens. The cynic in me wonders if Microsoft is behind all of this, as they stand to gain the most from a forced sale.

Not just a net importer, but also the main exporter of algorithmic feeds. If the US bans TikTok for fear of China manipulating public opinion via their algorithmic feed, lots of other countries might think twice whether they want to allow the same influence from the US via Twitter, Facebook, Threads, Youtube, Instagram, etc.

What’s even worse is that our elected officials had an opportunity to protect consumers and their data. Instead it’s a front for regulatory capture. I used to think it was malice but it really must be incompetence. Astronomical levels of incompetence enabled by an uneducated and complacent public.

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

#773

Post by MBCook » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 8:56 PM UTC

calibas wrote: post #764

segasaturn wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

In a strict technical sense, you are correct. Anything that encourages individuals to participate in their government is promoting democracy. However, I think it's heavy whitewashing to look at this whole situation and says it's TikTok promoting democracy. I find it very hard to believe TikTok is doing this being they genuinely want to promote democracy in the US. This threatens to end TikTok's influence over million…

In attempting to defend themselves (which is fair) they did the exact thing that their opponents have accused them of being able to do.

I don’t know what the right move for them was. Maybe it was just to say this was happening or link to a new story or something.

But saying it’s a “ban”* and helping people find the number to call their representative went over the line and made them look very bad.

*It’s not strictly a ban, only a ban on Chinese ownership. If an American company took total control they could continue to operate. So calling it a “ban” is a little disingenuous in someways although it’s also a lot easier to say

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

#774

Post by MBCook » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:00 PM UTC

segasaturn wrote: post #590

hparadiz wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole reason this is even happening is because they've been caught pushing political content that is blatantly either pro-China or meant to stir shit up in the American population. The irony with your comment is that TikTok's masters in China already have the same power that SOPA was supposed to grant the US government. In other words the USA is trying to strip the CCP of that power. They could've played ball and…

> The irony with your comment is that TikTok's masters in China already have the same power that SOPA was supposed to grant the US government Yes, the power of democracy. People spoke up and prevented a harmful law from being passed - why is TikTok exercising that right, in the same way as Google and Facebook, a problem? It sounds like you want the US to become like the CCP instead of vice versa.

Because TikTok is owned by one of our adversaries. They’ve been accused of pushing propaganda and they just accidentally proved how effective they can be at causing political change in the US.

Exactly what their opponents were afraid they had the power to do.

It looks REALLY bad. In this case it wasn’t anything sinister and they were open about it but tactically it was probably a massive mistake.

Also why didn’t they just tell everyone in the US? Why did only certain users get the message? Because of where they lived? Because they were voting age? They also proved they have an ability to target specific people for political action based on some (unknown) criteria.

That also looks horrible and plays right into their opponents hands.

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

#775

Post by MBCook » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:02 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #437

avgDev wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently some kids were calling crying saying that they will kill themselves if they ban the app. Absolutely crazy. TikTok trying to sway users made a huge mistake.

Or maybe trying to sway users overtly seems like a mistake? Could trying to sway users subtly have still been a win in this instance? I'd think a platform doing manipulation subtly is actually more dangerous, and the bigger potential threat from a platform. Because people being influenced would be less aware of it, and it's much harder for other parties to call out. (Although, when I look at current TV news and some…

It’s unfortunate. They went about it honestly by doing it in the open, and that provided proof that they were dangerous.

If they had done it subtly, that would have proved that they had the power to do it too but if they weren’t caught it wouldn’t have blown up in their face.

Of course if they were caught it would be an even bigger deal.

Catch 22 for them.

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

#776

Post by calibas » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #738

calibas wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They didn’t try to manipulate democracy, people didn’t vote for their representatives based on their ideas about tiktok, there was no referendum about how to handle tiktok, but of course they actually showed that they could have the influence to affect future democratic process

Contacting your representative to try to influence them is a fundamental part of democracy.

Democracy is not just voting for someone, a democratic government is intended to be directly influenced by the people continually. It's kind of the whole point of a representative democracy.

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

#777

Post by msabalau » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #613

zachmu wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Propaganda of other countries are legal under first ammendment. Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which apps one can or cannot use on one's device. Also even at the hight of cold war, Soviet Life magazine was published and disseminated widely in the US.

If the first amendment actually protects TikTok here, as may be the case, then the courts can strike this down.

On the other hand, perhaps the first amendment doesn't block this. In that case, that relevant consideration would seems to be rare broad bipartisan support (as evidenced by a very lopsided 352-65 vote, but we'll see what happens in the Senate) to limit the potential harm that can be done by the information warfare capabilities of a genocidal authoritarian regime with whom it is certainly plausible that the US will be at war with in the next decade.

It is really unclear, absent a successful constitutional challenge, why the free speech maximalism preferences of a throwaway account on HN should hold more weight than lopsided bipartisan vote by democratically elected legislators.

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

#778

Post by hellotomyrars » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:04 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #504

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…

The word "reciprocity" cannot hide the fact that two wrongs doesn't make a right. We think it is wrong of China to censor Facebook and Twitter because that is what authoritarian regimes that don't give a shit about free speech do. For exactly the same reason it is wrong of the US to ban TikTok. And this bill has nothing to do with balancing international trade. It's stated purpose is to restrict China's ability to in…

This is the wrong argument. This legislation doesn't censor TikTok like China censors social media/the internet at large. It simply requires the ownership of Tiktok to be American in the US. This is the same thing China does (You can't operate in China without a Chinese partner to run your operation in China.)

You can debate whether or not it is reasonable or important to for the US to impose similar ownership requirements for businesses operating in the US, but couching it in argument of censorship the way China does it is a real false equivalence. Congress doesn't want to censor your speech on Tiktok (Which isn't how the 1st amendment works anyways) they want China to divest itself of US operations.

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

#779

Post by carlosjobim » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:06 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #668

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…

This is a common misunderstanding of what the first amendment means. Speech and individual expression are individual rights and not institution rights. Perhaps you have some argument with "freedom of press" but that's a pretty hefty uphill battle for TikTok to prove that they are press and not just a random social media business. Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business…

> Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business can and can't say. For example, a supplement company can't advertise "This fish oil will cure your cancer!"

That's misunderstanding what law is. An individual can be tried for fraud just as a business. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech.

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

#780

Post by hellotomyrars » Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:09 PM UTC

pksebben wrote: post #571

BeetleB wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. If someone makes a video of a TikTok video and shares it on Youtube/Whatsapp, that's legal. The actual content is legal, so it's not a free speech/censorship issue. This is the equivalent of "We'v…

What I find troubling about this is the delta between the vox populi and the decision made. Whether it's right or prudent or whatever, if you figure that people using the service don't want it shut down (~170M or roughly half of the population) then what's happening here is that our "representatives" are doing what they always do and totally ignoring their constituency. Mind you, this isn't surprising in the least, b…

I think a lot of this is the language used in reporting around it. It is presented as a Ban on Tiktok in headlines and people who regurgitate them when the purpose of the legislation is not to ban Tiktok but require them to sell their American operations to a domestic company. The penalty for non-compliance is to not allow them to operate in the US but the goal isn't to ban Tiktok.