back
71 comments
They (either political wind that blows in) will use this as precedent and apply it to other businesses it sees as an ideological or technical "danger"
I don't like tiktok but the hypocrisy is insane
What do you mean? China has banned all US social media. On the simple grounds of reciprocity (which afaik is a generally accepted foreign policy strategy) this ban seems justified.
The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.

The argument against TikTok boils down to "it's Chinese", without any kind of detail or thought on how this badness actually works. What, specifically, is bad about TikTok that doesn't apply to any other influence buying or advertising operation within the US?

HN often argues that free speech is such an unalloyed important political good that all sorts of racism and incitement to violence must be allowed. The widespread defence of Kiwifarms, for example. But as soon as someone mentions the magic word "China" all that goes out of the window?

(I should note that if you're a US national or resident with Chinese family or of Chinese origin, the long arm of oppression can be much more of a problem!)

Just look at the american media reacting to any kind of control over american tech companies...

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/brazilian-g...

Any kind of control over these companies is seen as "censorship", while banning a foreign (to the USA) company in the US is seen as a matter of national strategy... That's why it is so hypocritical

it seems rather mild, even.

A lot of companies wanting to operate in china must have a pretty large ownership by chinese parties. While chinese owned companies have no such obligations in the US.

Microsoft runs outlook, bing, and until recently LinkedIn in China.
What's the hypocrisy here?
Not the parent, but I think the main hypocrisy is to claim that freedom of enterprise and that freedom or speech are paramount, and then cracking down on Tiktok.

The fact that Tiktok has 60% ownership by investment funds (most of which are US based), is just the cherry on top.

Personally, I think that some amount of censorship is warranted (see the "paradox of intolerance"), but I think that then the US should dial back all of that "land of the free" rethoric

People and companies in the U.S. (and parts of the U.S. government) have frequently said that it's bad of the Chinese government to prevent U.S. companies from having Chinese users, and to prevent people in Chinese from choosing to see material from U.S. companies and users. We've said that this wasn't a legitimate thing for Chinese law to do, on account of human rights law, free speech principles, and also trade treaties. We've tried hard to help people in China circumvent technical restrictions on accessing foreign content and services, and often claimed that was appropriate as a matter of upholding Chinese people's autonomy.

(I say "we" here because I've personally done those things.)

Can you explain? TikTok is banned in China too.
And the U.S. (people, companies, government, and NGOs) say that Chinese Internet censorship is bad for Chinese people, not just for American companies whose services are blocked.
you realize this has happened before right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr#Divesture_and_public_li...

Who in the US could realistically buy it? And how could ByteDance sell TikTok without selling its Chinese counterpart Douyin (that it shares its codebase with)?
It seems like the move is to force ByteDance to set up a company incorporated wholly in the United States, which would then be subject to the oversight of the US government. Then, Byte Dance would lease the IP surrounding TikTok to this separate company. All the US customer data would be siloed on US servers and perused by US agencies and Byte Dance would still get their revenue from the US market. I don't know if the close association with ByteDance and China would still make that sort of arrangement a target of the US government.
The move is to ban TikTok.
As it is now ByteDance is owned by 60% mostly US investors and 40% by mostly Chinese founder and employees.

Would it be ok with this law if they brought down the 40% to 20% by an IPO in Singapore or the UK?

It doesn’t matter because it is still ultimately controlled by the CCP.
Facebook (fold it into Instagram)? Google (fold it into YouTube Shorts)? Elon Musk if he wants to lose even more money? Or any other very rich big tech company that wants to have an insanely addictive social media app? If nobody buys it then it will lose much of its value anyway by not being usable by a huge moneyed market which will apply downwards pressure on the price as buyers play chicken with each other. Plenty of buyers.
Elon will definitely relaunch Vine if the opportunity presents itself here, but in a more similar style to TikTok. It could very well become the top popular alternative if TikTok were to become unavailable.
Facebook and YouTube. Wouldn’t this be against US monopoly regulations?
[dupe]

More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681

Assuming Biden signs this this week - would Trump be able to undo it assuming he wins? Essentially making this an election subject.
Likely yes, because "determination of the President" occurs five times in the text of bill,

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

Specifically with regards to Tiktok, the answer is a flat and simple no as written in Section 2, Subsection (g)(3)(A): https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

>(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—

>(A) any of—

>(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

>(ii) TikTok;

>(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or

>(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii);

No. The POTUS as part of the Executive Branch serves to Execute laws Legislated by Congress as the Legislative Branch.

The Supreme Court or a lower court could Judge the law to be unconstitutional as the Judiciary Branch, and to that end the POTUS can nominate judges and the Senate can approve or deny them.

The only thing POTUS can unilaterally enact and/or revoke are Executive Orders, which themselves are grounded in laws Legislated by Congress and Judged by the courts as necessary.

No, because in the US congress needs to act to repeal a law. He would not be able to "undo" it by himself.
Doesn’t the text of this law leave it to the president’s discretion?
Biden said he will sign it this morning. Nobody can undo it without a new bill passing through congress to undo it.
Imagine Europe forcing a sale of the European side of Meta or Google because they have a lot of data on EU citizens...
Though China already has banned plenty of western apps under the same premise. Plenty of precedence on the other side.
Russia too: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X are banned, Tiktok is severely restricted (no uploads, no non-Russian content).
But the U.S. theory (which I advocate) is that this behavior is hurting Chinese people, not just Americans! It's somewhat bizarre to say that retaliating for that in the same fashion is thereby justified. Sure, it makes sense in a trade war sense, but not in a "free speech is actually good and everyone is entitled to it" sense.
Because Meta and Google are weaponized by a dictatorship?

How can people really be so blind to the enormous threat posed by allowing hostile dictatorships unfettered access to our eyeballs and devices within our own borders.

I mean... that isn't outside of the realm of possibility honestly. A lot of European states and the EU parliament have been making noises that could lead down that path. EU states actually take user data seriously, and its not like the US firms have been covering themselves in glory in that regard.
Yes an ally having access to sensitive data is exactly the same situation as an authoritarian rival having access.
TikTok is concerning. With it's data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory. Given that China is a communist dictatorship with a thing for propaganda, and where government is always involved with companies, I believe that this is mostly justified.
As a non US citizen the cognitive dissonance at play here is astonishing, but sadly not surprising anymore.

All governments play the propaganda game, no need for autocrats. On my phone right now, but if you want I can pull up sources. One painfully clear example is the war in Iraq. Look at how the US Government portrays itself in that regard, as the invasion force and violent oppressor or as the glorious savior and bringer of democracy and freedom?

Facebook is concerning. With its data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory.

(oh wait, that was the Cambridge Analytica fiasco)

If they’re claiming the First Amendment, they’re saying they’re not just a passive facilitator of communication but communicating themselves, which seems to validate it as a state propaganda arm.
Maybe if they're asserting their own first amendment rights, although I doubt anyone would question the BBC's free expression interests in sharing its broadcasting with Americans (or Chinese or Iranians), or Americans' first amendment interest in choosing to access that programming, even though the BBC's editorial line isn't completely free of political influence from the British government.

I thought their statement was that they help Americans exercise their first amendment rights in communicating with one another, which seems obviously true. Much like HN is doing right now, for example!

Wouldn't that position would also invalidate section 230 protections?