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

81–90 of 741 posts

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#81

Post by charlieflowers »

kirse wrote: post #66
charlieflowers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real concerns, in order of importance, are: 1. This is a way of getting memes to the masses that we (the US political establishment) can't fully control. 2. Meta and others are getting their asses kicked revenue-wise by Tik Tok. Like any business, they'd use anything they could to fight back. Turns out they can use China fear mongering, so they are. 3. (Added) Believe it or not, there's nationalistic pride here.…

Actual #1. TikTok is banned in China, but in their similar app (Douyin) their kids are limited to 40min a day and restricted from a lot of the digital opium drip that US kids are receiving in infinite quantities. Sounds like it'd only be fair to follow suit if China itself is limiting the poisoning of their own citizens: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/03/24/douyin-tiktok...

It is mind boggling, and at the same time not surprising at all, that China is enforcing a humane policy to protect its children when we are not willing to do the same.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#82

Post by charlieflowers »

Gigachad wrote: post #25
charlieflowers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real concerns, in order of importance, are: 1. This is a way of getting memes to the masses that we (the US political establishment) can't fully control. 2. Meta and others are getting their asses kicked revenue-wise by Tik Tok. Like any business, they'd use anything they could to fight back. Turns out they can use China fear mongering, so they are. 3. (Added) Believe it or not, there's nationalistic pride here.…

When the memes involve destroying the school bathrooms and stealing cars. It's probably worth considering what control is had over it.

Lawmakers don't care about that. You're giving them way too much credit. Since the public is not in an uproar about this destructiveness, there are no votes or advantages to be gained by advocating against it.

That's for altruists, who rarely make it to Washington and don't last long when they do.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#83

Post by charlieflowers »

BobbyJo wrote: post #37
Gigachad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the memes involve destroying the school bathrooms and stealing cars. It's probably worth considering what control is had over it.

Yeah, that's where the Toyota/Honda comparison breaks down to me. Toyota and Honda sell cars to users. TikTok sells users.

I mean, yeah, true. But only in the exact same way that Meta, Google, and a bunch of other American companies do too.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#84

Post by tzs »

abeppu wrote: post #62

What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago. China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companies can provide such a service to US customers? Is that not protectionism? If we're afraid that China will use TikTok to push their propaganda in the US, we should be appropriately concerned that banning a platform to stop targeted speech is in conflict with our…

If those companies were willing to obey the same rules that Chinese companies have to obey in China (censoring what the government tells them to censor, sharing personal data that the government asks for, sharing technology that the governments asks for) they could operate in China.

It's not all that different from how US restaurant chains cannot operate in the UAE unless they take things off the menu that violate Islamic dietary rules. So Wendy's in Dubai does not sell The Baconator.

So there's nothing really to pursue via the WTO. It's not a protectionism issue when domestic and foreign companies have to obey the same or similar restrictions, even if those restrictions are onerous.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#85

Post by tzs »

humanistbot wrote: post #3

If the concern is privacy and security, which apply to all social media platforms, then why not pass actual privacy and security laws that would apply equally to all social media platforms, regardless of who currently owns it or may own it in the future?

Actual privacy and security laws aren't passed because this is not a sufficiently bipartisan issue to get enough votes.

One party is largely in favor of stronger privacy laws, but with enough dissenters that when that party is the majority party they still would need help from the other party.

The other party is largely against stronger privacy laws, without enough dissenters to overcome the more pro-privacy party dissenters when the more pro-privacy party has the majority.

So nothing passes.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wincy wrote: post #75
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> square this circle with the first amendment It's authorizing the President to ban certain classes of transactions. Not behavior let alone speech.

Right he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares!” This is mind boggling that every single person on HN isn’t terrified of this. Surely most of us were around in the 2000s when the Bush Administration demonized people who spoke against the war? Aren’t we the same people who were railing against censorship then? What HAPPENED to tha…

> he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares

Let’s be real. Nobody is closing anything down. This is a bizarre game of brinksmanship between D.C. and Beijing that ends in one place: divestiture. The only reason it’s getting so much attention is because the object of concern is a social media property, not e.g. a port asset or power plant.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#87

Post by paxys »

abeppu wrote: post #62

What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago. China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companies can provide such a service to US customers? Is that not protectionism? If we're afraid that China will use TikTok to push their propaganda in the US, we should be appropriately concerned that banning a platform to stop targeted speech is in conflict with our…

What's the complaint exactly? Unrestricted global free trade isn't something every country is expected to support or the WTO is meant to enforce. China can ban foreign companies and services from operating in their jurisdiction for any or no reason. Other countries are free to do the same.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#88

Post by paxys »

ReptileMan wrote: post #80
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> square this circle with the first amendment It's authorizing the President to ban certain classes of transactions. Not behavior let alone speech.

Do you think that the President banning people to sell paper, ink, electricity and internet access to the NYTimes has any chance to fly as not violating the 1A? I mean they can shout from the windows and write on the glass windows with lipstick.

A better analogy is – is it a violation of the first amendment if the government intercepts and holds a shipment of newspapers sent from China at customs?

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#89

Post by throwaway-blaze »

BobbyJo wrote: post #37
Gigachad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the memes involve destroying the school bathrooms and stealing cars. It's probably worth considering what control is had over it.

Yeah, that's where the Toyota/Honda comparison breaks down to me. Toyota and Honda sell cars to users. TikTok sells users.

Toyota and Honda both assemble cars here in the US and have a huge network of US-based suppliers. No one believes that those companies operate under Japanese government direction nor that the Japanese government has the ability to influence company management to the degree the CCP clearly can with TikTok. It is well documented that the "Golden Shares" owned by the CCP and the board seat on they have give them fundamental control of the company.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#90

Post by throwaway-blaze »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #46

>Read twice and referred to the Committee on I'm so cynical, I bet even that is a lie. Diving in, the list of "foreign adversaries" is amusing. China and Russia have to be on there. Iran and North Korea I guess. Cuba and specifically a Maduro led Venezuela are a stretch. What this bill actually seems to do is allow the Secretary of Commerce to review any communication technology, including both apps and hardware, use…

We already have CFIUS and have for years.
Post reply on HN