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

TikTok goes dark in the US

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#991

Post by [deleted] »

psiconaut wrote: post #493
jimkleiber wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised no one replied to your post but maybe that's because it shuts down most arguments. Most, if not all, states in a nation-state world have laws that allow them to ban the imports of foreign goods. Maybe at some point we'll get a global government to resolve inter-national conflict but until then, we have nation-states dividing humanity to protect "their" humans.

Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age. What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very diffe…

[deleted]

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#992

Post by absolutelastone »

imperio59 wrote: post #656
gyoridavid wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the same logic, youtube, facebook, google, etc. should not be owned by the parent company in other countries than the US because of the influence they have on ppls opinions (on policital elections and whatnot)

You assume there is a symmetrical relationship between the US and other nations here. There is not, hasn't been since WW2.

Especially since those ironically are among the long list of American websites banned in China for decades...

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#993

Post by dang »

KikoHeit wrote: post #201
AirMax98 wrote: post #98

It's a shame that it's come to this. I feel that all arguments that TikTok is unhealthy or spyware and bad for our general public are valid, but the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever. Rather than have some sort of further regulation for what data any application can collect and present to Americans, we've just brought the hammer down on the millions of people that use this application for their…

[flagged]

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed on this site, regardless of what you're battling for or against.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#994

Post by ddmf »

FilipeMaia wrote: post #394

The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.

One would think that should apply to essential services like power, but here in the UK our largest energy distribution network is owned by France.

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#995

Post by Gormo »

FilipeMaia wrote: post #394

The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.

The Communications Act of 1934 applies primarily to broadcast media, and many of the restrictions that it put in place were specifically justified by the inherent scarcity of broadcast spectrum, where the rationale that one party can dominate the airwaves and prevent others from rebutting them does have some relevance.

Restrictions that would be clearly invalid as applied to other forms of media were therefore allowed -- you need an FCC license to operate a radio station, but any proposal to require a federal license to operate a printing press, for example, would be extremely unconstitutional.

Once the licencing regime was in place for broadcast media, they were able to work other concerns into the criteria for issuing licenses. But the argument you seem to be making here -- that it's appropriate to regulate public communications in order to control, as an end in itself, who is allowed to have "influence" on public opinion -- flies in the face of the first amendment, and is entirely outside the legitimate role of the federal government.

The internet does not have the scarcity of communication channels that broadcast media does -- apps and websites are more like printing presses than radio stations.

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#996

Post by LtWorf »

wolletd wrote: post #347
IAmNotACellist wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Grey zone conflict" sounds a lot like our powers are upset they don't have the level of control over information that the adversary has. They want to be the ones to censor, suppress, and promote, rather than another country. The goal isn't more open access to information.

You make it sound like that's generally a negative thing, implying that the information being promoted by other countries is made equal and has some implicit right to be spread. But it's not, it's geopolitic information warfare.

As a european, talking to any american, we notice you guys have levels of propaganda that are way way higher than what we get. And we do get propaganda.

The notion that without tiktok you'll now get anything "true" is laughable.

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#997

Post by dang »

katamari-damacy wrote: post #709
moviet wrote: post #695

(Perspective from an American) Information is the gold of the 21st century. Whoever controls the flow of information has all the wealth and all the power. Therefore, data is the greatest currency in the world. This outcome was never intended to happen, but ByteDance is taking a chance that the American government will relent. We’ll see in a few months who wins the stalemate. TikTok has an immense amount of cultural p…

[flagged]

The comment looks to me to have been quite organically upvoted. The upvoters are mostly users who've been here for years (in many cases, a lot of years) and have posted and voted on all kinds of topics in the past.

While I have you, could I ask you to please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? Note these two of the guidelines:

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#998

Post by rvba »

acmerfight wrote: post #989
FilipeMaia wrote: post #394

The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.

TikTok and the Scope of the Communications Act of 1934 Are Different The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern…

> TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S.

I very much doubt that 5 million people earn significant money from tik tok

Re: TikTok goes dark in the US

#1000

Post by fennecbutt »

ParetoOptimal wrote: post #977
gyoridavid wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the same logic, youtube, facebook, google, etc. should not be owned by the parent company in other countries than the US because of the influence they have on ppls opinions (on policital elections and whatnot)

Maybe we should go farther. Should Samsung divest because so many Americans have a Samsung Galaxy? Who knows what could be on those chips.

Pretty sure South Korea is considered an ally. That's how political relationships work.
Post reply on HN