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

US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#91

Post by somenameforme »

rurp wrote: post #87
falcolas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China announced years ago it would not support the divestment of China's interests in TikTok/Bytedance. So it's always been a de facto ban of TikTok hidden behind the justification that it's not a de jure ban.

Destroying the company rather than selling it for billions of dollars is a crazy stance for a supposedly independent business, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There is a good chance they are bluffing, which would be a reasonable strategy as they try to push back on the bill. The only reason they would go through with burning the company down is for geopolitical reasons, which would show how beholden Ti…

Brand damage from the new owners + having reveal algorithm could easily be worth far more for TikTok than they'd get from selling. There's also the question of how a ban would even be implemented. For instance India "banned" TikTok but you can still use it if it's installed. And you can get the APK installer from their site for Android users, and Apple users can just change their region to download it normally.

Whatever the means chosen to ban it is, it'll probably face even more legal challenges.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#92

Post by harrisrobin »

Are people really that brainwashed that they don’t realize that the only reason tiktok is being banned is because of the Israel Lobby?

A foreign nation wants to ban it because it doesn’t serve its interest, this foreign nation happens to buy up all our politicians.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#93

Post by dylan604 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #90
dylan604 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just this weekend, I was told that we were in WWIII, but in secret. Of course there's all of the big lie nonsense. There's still talk of which ever Kennedy coming back. Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread? > did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? Why is that even a question? Of course the crazy was…

> Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread? I'm not, I was actually curious what your examples were. > It just so happens the time the socials were gaining usage with people that specifically do not know critical thinking nor have been taught the ways to investigate sources. I would be curious about the rate of misunderstandi…

> My feeling is that kids today are generally smarter and better informed than kids of the past

wow, that's exactly the opposite of the way I see things today. They definitely have access to a lot more information much more easily than I did as a kid. However, my point to the whole ease of spreading disinformation is much more widely used. Also, most kids do not stray far from TikTok or whatever social platform of choice. So typically, a researched concept is only confirmed using another user from a social platform. So their confirmation bias is coming from an echo chamber. There's no deep dive into who actually runs the account whether its a bot or an actual human. If enough people are subscribing/liking, then it must be good seems to be the prevailing logic. "surely, someone wouldn't deliberately mislead someone, right" is an actual comment I was told. And Jesus wept.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#94

Post by wumeow »

somenameforme wrote: post #85
wumeow wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look up information about the Gaza War on YouTube and you'll be inundated with various sources promoting a uniformly pro-Israel narrative I encourage everyone to try this out in a private tab to see how untrue this is.

Here is the search I'm using: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gaza+war Most links are covering the recent Israel strike on the refugee camp in Rafah, where dozens of civilians were killed in a single strike. That happened after the UN's International Court of Justice specifically ordered Israel to halt their offensive in Rafah. I think hyperbolic responses to this would not only be expected, but perfectl…

I get a couple videos from Democracy Now and Al-Jazeera as well, some from TRT World further down, not to mention the recommended Shorts. None of the videos are shying away from showing the harrowing aftermath of the strike, and they make sure to qualify any statement from the IDF or Netanyahu as being such.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#95

Post by bonestamp2 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #34
bonestamp2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the law specifically refers to companies that hold a broadcast license. Of course, the law was written in 1934 so they could challenge TikTok based not on the letter of the law but on the spirit of the law. But, case precedence is also not in their favor as they approved a 100% foreign ownership of a media company in 2017.

I didn't mean to say that that law might apply here (no idea there), just that it seems to me possible at least in some situations to put limits on foreign ownership for certain mass media.

I agree. I just meant that they might have some trouble with that when it comes to the legal framework to do so.

Most of our social media companies can't operate in China at all. Some of the US companies that do operate in China take on part ownership of their Chinese company from the Chinese government. It's unbalanced that we would allow TikTok to operate without more oversight or some US ownership/control.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#96

Post by falcolas »

rurp wrote: post #87
falcolas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China announced years ago it would not support the divestment of China's interests in TikTok/Bytedance. So it's always been a de facto ban of TikTok hidden behind the justification that it's not a de jure ban.

Destroying the company rather than selling it for billions of dollars is a crazy stance for a supposedly independent business, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There is a good chance they are bluffing, which would be a reasonable strategy as they try to push back on the bill. The only reason they would go through with burning the company down is for geopolitical reasons, which would show how beholden Ti…

China won't care that they give up a few billion in a one time sale if it creates a rift between a majority (or huge minority) of regular users and the US government. They'd probably consider it a bargain. Additionally, they have a very good chance of winning via our court system. This is not the first attempt at shutting down TikTok in the US using these tactics.

At the end of the day, China - or any government for that matter - won't sacrifice their alleged propaganda and cyber-warfare platform for a few hundred million in recurring revenue.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#97

Post by falcolas »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
falcolas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill which could easily cover the website as well.

> Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera . The closest thing that could happen is the domain is seized and it winds up behind TikTok.cn.

> The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera

All of which can be argued for the app as well. Frankly, I'd want something a bit more specific. Especially since the government has used vague laws and language to quite effectively nuke specific websites before.

The thing that could happen is TikTok being findable only at 205.251.194.210 or its ipv6 equivalent.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#98

Post by linearrust »

mrkramer wrote: post #86

I know that US has liberal constitution and liberal market economy but putting aside national security risks; why would US let ByteDance reap billions of dollars in profit from US market when Google and Facebook are not allowed to participate in Chinese market and reap profits as well? You could argue that Facebook and Google could abide by Chinese censorship laws and then what? Strip down like 50% from overall conte…

> why would US let ByteDance reap billions of dollars in profit from US market when Google and Facebook are not allowed to participate in Chinese market and reap profits as well?

Google and facebook are allowed to participate in the chinese market. If they follow chinese rules. One of them being storing chinese data in china which google and facebook refused to do.

Why are microsoft, apple and other tech companies allowed to do busy in china? Because they follow chinese laws.

> Strip down like 50% from overall content because it is not in line with CCP's ideology?!

As opposed to stripping content to line up with israeli ideology, european ideology or anyone else's ideology?

Other than hypocrisy, do you have a point?

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#99

Post by linearrust »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
whimsicalism wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i never voted to be at war with China, i think most of this is fearmongering, and we managed to survive the entire cold war without banning foreign ownership of media outlets.

> we managed to survive the entire cold war without banning foreign ownership of media outlets Because we did it in 1934 [1]. There were no Soviet TV channels. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310

You aren't american. It's been established many times here by many people. What 'we' are you referring to?

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#100

Post by masfrost »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
pbiggar wrote: post #37

The claim that this is is about national security is absurd. It's about Palestine, and Blinken and Romney admitted as much. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato... > Romney replied, "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relati…

Practically everything passed by the Congress requires a coalition. That means single attributions are rarely correct. The protests added a coalition partner to the team, but that was marginal and far from the bulk of electeds’ (and voters’) concerns. First and foremost, this is and has been for a few years now about China.

Single attributions are rarely correct until it's about Israel/Palestine. You might need to immerse yourself more in the issue before you start noticing these things.
Post reply on HN