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

Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 273 posts

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#91

Post by Clubber »

coldpie wrote: post #5

> "There are real national security risks associated with TikTok, but it’s also an app 150 million Americans use," said Peter Harrell, who served on Biden’s National Security Council until last fall. It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. Banning it on government devices makes sense, but I don't understand why they're trying to ban individuals from using…

There is a theory that the government is doing this to stifle competition for US companies. It's certainly not out of character, but there could be other reasons as well.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#92

Post by [deleted] »

jncfhnb wrote: post #80
coldpie wrote: post #5

> "There are real national security risks associated with TikTok, but it’s also an app 150 million Americans use," said Peter Harrell, who served on Biden’s National Security Council until last fall. It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. Banning it on government devices makes sense, but I don't understand why they're trying to ban individuals from using…

How would you feel if China offered Americans $5 to vote for the candidate of their choice? Or paid people to speak on that candidates behalf without disclosing it as advertising? Or paid twitter to hide certain topics while promoting certain topics without classifying them as ads or promoted? Or if they were social media and just started lying to you about your social circle’s public opinion?

[deleted]

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#93

Post by beachy »

hammock wrote: post #84
mschuster91 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

You still didn't explain the risks too clearly. Let's grant that TikTok is under direct CCP control, and specifically targets kids. Targets them for what? Mind control?

> Targets them for what? Mind control?

Attempts to change/form their views to be favourable towards dictatorships and antagonistic to democracies.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#94

Post by kurthr »

standardUser wrote: post #73
mschuster91 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

> First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. Statements like that really make me question people's knowledge of basic history and international politics. Yes, a nation's major commercial actors often work in conjecture with their government. Is this news to anyone? This is not unique to China in the least. > The second difference/risk comes with…

That's pretty funny. TikTok is literally banned in China, along with Facebook, YouTube and all Google, Wikipedia, Twitter, and even Github. There is an actual firewall blocking access, the use of a non-government controlled VPN is a crime. Your iCloud must be stored in China. If you see a post on any social media outlet other than Weibo/WeChat/DouYen/TenCent (which are heavily censored), they are under gov control. This is true even in HK.

See the disappearance of Naomi Wu or Peng Shuai.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#95

Post by coldpie »

jncfhnb wrote: post #80
coldpie wrote: post #5

> "There are real national security risks associated with TikTok, but it’s also an app 150 million Americans use," said Peter Harrell, who served on Biden’s National Security Council until last fall. It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. Banning it on government devices makes sense, but I don't understand why they're trying to ban individuals from using…

How would you feel if China offered Americans $5 to vote for the candidate of their choice? Or paid people to speak on that candidates behalf without disclosing it as advertising? Or paid twitter to hide certain topics while promoting certain topics without classifying them as ads or promoted? Or if they were social media and just started lying to you about your social circle’s public opinion?

How would you feel about Facebook doing any of that?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#96

Post by Golden_Wind123 »

macintosh-hd wrote: post #60
throwaway63323 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Big tech in the US is just upset they didn't come up with Tiktok first They did come up with it first, it was called Vine. I would even go as far as calling TikTok a Vine clone.

Tik tok is only a vine clone if Reddit is a Twitter clone. They operate completely differently and had very different starting points.

Comparing Reddit to Twitter is bad. But saying TikTok is a vine Clone like Reddit is a Digg clone is a pretty good analogy though.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#97

Post by chrisco255 »

throwaway63323 wrote: post #41
Eumenes wrote: post #4

At first, I was all for banning Tiktok, but I'm come around - no social media giant has the users or general public in mind, whether their HQ is in the US or China. Big tech in the US is just upset they didn't come up with Tiktok first and in turn, the intelligence agencies are upset they can't snoop as much as they'd like. This turns off politicians because they're 1) tight with big tech 2) support the federal intel…

>Big tech in the US is just upset they didn't come up with Tiktok first They did come up with it first, it was called Vine. I would even go as far as calling TikTok a Vine clone.

Vine was pretty limited and never really evolved much beyond its earliest implementation. TikTok has powerful editing, remixing, and a very good recommendation engine that Vine never had.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#98

Post by colordrops »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #88
colordrops wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "Foreign Hostile Government" an official legal distinction? I thought the US was still on good terms with China as a trade partner.

It’s a weird duality with import taxes acting as a middle ground. It seems the belief that a conflict with China is inevitable is becoming more pervasive. So much of the US economy relies on reselling Chinese goods that to stop trading completely would be calamitous. I think the idea is to keep trading right up until the war starts. I’ve already stocked up on goods and materials that are only available from China as…

Which goods in particular are you stocking up on?

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#99

Post by stale2002 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #74
usernomdeguerre wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.

If there are no clear rules, no, it's not legal (by definition, "law" is a set of clear rules). If you decide that "no Chinese social network is allowed", you can create a law for that. But the TikTok ban is not like this.

If you care, you can find the clear rules here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act

Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,

"Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States

Interference and manipulation of federal elections

Undermining the democratic process to "steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States".

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#100

Post by Clubber »

standardUser wrote: post #73
mschuster91 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

> First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. Statements like that really make me question people's knowledge of basic history and international politics. Yes, a nation's major commercial actors often work in conjecture with their government. Is this news to anyone? This is not unique to China in the least. > The second difference/risk comes with…

>And this argument is so tired that it even has its own Wikipedia page explaining that it is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

This was used during my childhood by the Reagan (and subsequent) administration as justification for cracking down on the drug war and leading us closer to a police state, skirting constitutional rights, etc. Of course the children they were supposedly protecting got arrested for smoking pot and underage drinking and whatnot, damaging their lives and future outlook, sometimes significantly.

Post reply on HN