If it's not tiktok it'll be reels or shorts or perhaps a new app that will do basically the same.
That from a "tiktok is bad for you" perspective. From a security and economic perspective there's a big difference between the company behind it being Meta or bytedance.
Then again, if tiktok people flock to reels we'd sort of have a big concentration of the social media market in the hands of Meta. Concerning, looking into this, etc.
Ultimately I do believe the issue here is more of a "we don't want Americans using a Chinese app" than anything else. And from there they seek reasons to justify the ban.
> That from a "tiktok is bad for you" perspective. From a security and economic perspective there's a big difference between the company behind it being Meta or bytedance.
No, not really, they have proven time and again that they can't be trusted. Maybe its time to instead of protecting US company's data collection, we instead just limit data collection...
That's right. People forget that iOS 16 beta (or maybe 15) introduced an orange dot to signify if any app was copying data from the clipboard. TikTok lit up like a lighthouse, performing a copy every 3 seconds.
This is missing the core of the bill. The bill isn't a ban of TikTok, the bill is a cease and desist of sending user data to China. It gives ByteDance the option to do so, but since that would defeat their entire purpose for existing they see it as a "total ban" on TikTok and that's what they're telling their addicted teenage audience.
It doesn't ask them to cease sending data to China, it asks them to completely completely divulge themselves of any Chinese ownership. It's like if Europe told Google they could only operate in Europe if no American citizens had any significant ownership stake in the company.
That's a very shortsighted take. We don't want americans to use a chinese app that could be used to do harm to america and americans. This is part if their strategy, the same way they're using fentanyly exports. They learned the tactic from the opium wars against China by the british and how opium strangled china's society.
I can't believe how small fellow americans' value of our country and understanding of its fragility is.
Most people really don’t seem to understand that social media is more powerful than nuclear weapons and can be used to wage war just as effectively. The US government has been completely asleep at the wheel in combatting this. I hope they’re starting to wake up.
Yes, well, this is a story about American senators being contacted by their American constituents about an American bill that will affect how Americans interact with this app while in America. So it is a bit relevant here
True, but any US ban will have effects beyond just the US. It's also important to remind folks that what TikTok is doing is no different than what Meta (et.al.) is doing.
The US government plausibly has the opportunity for stronger influence over domestic corporations, and I think there is some non-trivial amounts of evidence to support this theory.
Personally, I much prefer that China hosts this substantial propaganda platform, I believe it to offer a nice counterbalance to the domestic propaganda we are subjected to.
It's entirely fanciful, but I'd like a national law to preserve some days of the week as "no social media" days.
It could allow for 1:1 and n:m (small n, small m) messaging on these days, but nothing bigger. Email would be carved out as an exception.
If it were to be enforced, it'd have to be levied onto companies from the top. They'd be forced to engineer these time window blocks.
Maybe every other day would be a social media day.
I think about this occasionally. It would probably be good for all of us as a society. Totally impractical, would get tons of push back and would never happen, but a fun thought.
> And you want it for me too. I don’t even know you. No thanks, I’ll live my life how I see fit.
Oh, don't you worry. I totally agree with you. Freedom is perhaps the most important thing in the world. I don't want people making choices for myself or others. Complete freedom - of thoughts, of speech, of actions. (But consequences for those that abuse it - murder, etc.)
That said, I still really miss the world before all of this happened. Our world has never been the same since smartphones arrived.
We'll never be able to go back to the way things were before. That world is dead forever, and nobody -- not me, not you -- will ever be able to bring it back. Doesn't stop me from wishing it would all go away occasionally. At the same time, I'd never be willing to give up what we have now.
> “It’s so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They’re teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can't take it away,
I don't use Tiktok and don't care whether or not it is banned but this is pure addict behavior.
It's one part entertainment, one part news, one part streaming platform, and one part peer-to-peer communication. It makes sense people can spend a lot of time there if it replaces many different apps/TV shows/etc.
You mention fist order effects (whether or not you are affected by a ban), but I'm curious if there are any second-order (or more) effects that you have preferences about?
None that are exclusive to Tiktok. Social media apps like Tiktok, Instagram, etc are fast food. I enjoy fast food every once in a while but I certainly wouldn't live off the stuff or spend all day in a Taco Bell.
The pop up signaled that they are willing to emotionally manipulate millions of teens and young adults into doing what they want. Completely dumbfounding strategy here by TikTok.
Totally different situation. If Wikipedia somehow ended up with so much emotional influence that members of congress were getting 1000+ calls a day then maybe. Wikipedia ain't backed by the Chinese government though.
I don't see it as a different thing. Both companies use their platforms to talk about legislation they feel is negative in one way or another. Wikipedia managing to get thousands of people to call congress over a bill that would ban encryption would be hailed as a miracle of democracy here.
I see a clear difference between a non-profit campaigning against something that would affect everyone and a private company campaigning against something that only affects their bottom line.
I don't think a healthy government should be deciding what software we install. I think a healthy government should be enforcing monopoly laws and data portability laws that would have fostered the growth of a TikTok-like in the USA.
If we had a healthy ecosystem of interconnected platforms and laws that worked to counter the extreme network effects of social media platforms we wouldn't have to worry about a major content stream getting piped through our largest geopolitical rival.
The problem with your idealist view here is that an individual or even a big corporation can't compete with an entire country. Douyin (Chinese version of TikTok) was subsidized and promoted by the Chinese government. Even a rich American corporation can't compete with a government that heavily controls which apps their users are allowed to use (the problem you're talking about).
Once the (addiction-tuned) algorithms were mastered and the back end was nice and stable ByteDance made their Westernized version for the rest of the world, TikTok. Again, subsidized and promoted by the Chinese government.
A lot of people are worried about the data collection but I don't think that's as big a deal of having control over the algorithms. If the Chinese government says, "promote this" to ByteDance it gets promoted (can they realistically say no?). It could be propaganda, competitors of people they don't like, or similar. If they say, "get rid of this content/these users" it all but disappears.
The US government can't control media like that (and is explicitly barred from doing so). They can ask for such things (as nicely as possible) but that's it.
Because of the popularity of TikTok it has an extremely powerful influence over millions of Americans. Is it in the US's best interests to allow that level of control to persist?
The fact that so many people called up these Congressmen because of a pop-up in the app is really strong evidence of the sort of propaganda they can distribute and the level of control and influence they can have (indirectly) over the US government. It's not a good situation.
Perhaps a bill that says something like, "It must not be possible for foreign governments to influence algorithms or target specific users or categories of users with propaganda" might be in order. I know that's a tall order but there are a number of low-bar steps that can be taken to prevent or at least slow down such foreign government shenanigans.
They're not deciding what software we install, did you read the article? The bill would require ByteDance (TikTok's parent company) to stop sending all this user data to China where it is ultimately used by the CCP. I'd argue that this bill doesn't go far enough, and companies of a certain size should be required to home US citizen data in the US, where it's subject to our laws and regulations.
> Did you read the article? Bytedance isn't just required to stop sending all data to China, it's required to divest itself of Chinese ownership.
Which makes sense. Do you really want an entity with the demonstrated capability to coordinate mass political action (i.e. this TikTok popup) to be under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party?
Yeah, I remember that a few years ago there was talk of forcing a sale to Oracle. Not sure why that fell through, but that action seems like its the most likely outcome.
Is there any actual, concrete data about the supposed harm Tiktok poses to health or security? The first one seems like out-of-touch geriatric politicians having a go at a wedge issue in an election year, and the second one places it on equal footing with Facebook and YouTube.
I don't find the "China scary" motivations behind this bill to be particularly convincing.
Remove (or open) black-box algorithmic recommendation engines and it's much less of an issue. The main problem with TikTok, from my perspective, is that they can tweak a few parameters and do something like intentionally sway public opinion or attempt to radicalize a subset of people.
This is a similar issue with domestic social media (Instagram knowingly harming teenage girls' mental health, YouTube recommending radicalism, Facebook facilitating Rohingya genocide and failing to act despite reports, etc)
Our government has completely failed us when it comes to evaluating these issues. It's impossible to expect the average not-so-savvy person to do it for themselves or their children.
Platforms of a certain size should absolutely be scrutinized because they are so broad reaching that they can alter the fabric of society (unknowingly, or more troubling, knowingly and without oversight).
It's a little incredible to me, that even within the tech industry, we think so highly of ourselves that most people still willingly subject themselves to these unknowns for hours every day.
It's a version of yellow scare which is a tiresome repetition of what happened in the past internments during WWII, in the 80s-90s w/ Japan, and today with China.
Either tiktok the app is doing something wrong and needs controlled - but that should come in a form of regulation to apply to all social media apps.
Or foreign investment ownership needs limits, but same thing, there should be a standard that applies to all foreign control concerns that should be expressed more generally than a singular app.
This draft [1], linked from this CNN article [2], starts with:
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed
by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any
successor application or service and any other application or service
developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control
of ByteDance Ltd.
And names TikTok and ByteDance specifically in it's contents which grants the power to do so, but does not suggest any particular standards why other than designations as a "Foreign Adversary". Which is basically a circular framework for bias. Would this apply to X with a large investment from Saudi Arabia for example?
Specific callouts occur deeper in the bill too - and with no standard or policy or reasoning why other than appearing on a list.
Ownership restrictions didn't keep Facebook from allegedly selling the space for mass influence of an election to Russia operating through a UK company. If politicians were actually looking to protect the US, regulations on social media and advertising that apply universally regardless of ownership would be much more effective. I would welcome a well built set of regs for that.
> It's a version of yellow scare which is a tiresome repetition of what happened in the past internments during WWII, in the 80s-90s w/ Japan, and today with China.
Attributing this to racism is a bit obtuse, imo. China conducts aggressive cyber warfare + espionage campaigns (see "Shady Rat"), and strictly controls which foreign companies are allowed to operate within their borders.
Of course, I would like to see more scrutiny applied to ALL companies invasive practices, be it Instagram or TikTok.
It is pretty simple. You should not let a geopolitical rival unfettered access to your populations data.
There is a reason China has banned all US tech companies, why should the U.S. allow Bytedance to push algorithms that effect 1/3rd of the U.S. Population?
You can dismiss it as racism if you are ignoring the numerous reports from the last 20 years showing rampant IP theft coming out of China.
The CCP will use any means they can to get an advantage, and if I were in their shoes I would do the same thing.
> Do we really want to emulated the Chinese state in regards to freedom of speech?
We definitely want to emulate the Chinese state in it's clear-eyed pursuit of its own interests and its protection of its political system from interference by its adversaries.
Don't be a fool. I read an article just today that showed where your kind of idealism leads. The Chinese state subsidized and supported Chinese solar panel manufacturers, the EU subsidized the purchase of solar panels from any manufacturer, and the end result is the European solar industry was totally destroyed.
Blocking a Chinese government controlled and subsidized entity from unfettered operation on your soil doesn't even remotely intersect "freedom of speech".
Someone domestic can create a TikTok clone if they feel like their free speech is being impinged. Problem solved.
Disconnecting from China is simply smart domestic security.
> Blocking a Chinese government controlled and subsidized entity from unfettered operation on your soil doesn't even remotely intersect "freedom of speech".
Ironically, there are a lot of philosophy accounts on tiktok, if you watch them it would give you an opportunity to realize that what appears to you as a fact is actually a belief, and an incorrect one at that (I suspect you are thinking of the first amendment, a very common error among humans).
This is both a non-sequitur and grammatically very strange--especially when compared to the quite clear grammar in submissions from more than 5 years ago as opposed to relatively new comments.
Has this "mistermann" account been compromised? Is there a way to flag it for review?
A reply could hardly be more ironic than this, even if you were trying.
Dang is well aware of my unusual perspective, and he too is not a fan afaict, but tends to "not be able to understand" simple unusually literal language when I explain.
>You should not let a geopolitical rival unfettered access to your populations data
In America the rights of the people come first, not the desires of the elites trying to lord over them. Americans don't win by letting the American government become more and more like the Chinese government.
This kind of geopolitical posturing is a lose-lose game for citizens of all countries involved, who lose more and more rights in the name of beating The Enemy, and a win-win game for the elites who use The Enemy as an excuse to exert more and more control over the population.
I guess, despite the various arguments for the ban, I'm always a little concerned when the government tells companies like Apple what apps they can and can't distribute.
> If their phones are ringing non-stop from people with a record of voting consistently, it’s much more likely to change their behavior.
American politicians can be craven or shortsighted don't think any of them are that craven or shortsighted. These callers are getting their cues from a entity ultimately controlled by a foreign adversary. Any politician who cares less about that than if the callers vote in November is the kind of politician would volunteer to be the lackey of foreign occupiers.
This is NOT a TikTok ban. It instead gives ByteDance 165 days to sell at least 80% of TikTok. The rules apply to any social media controlled by a foreign adversary country [2]. (There is also a data portability requirement.)
I just called my representative (Wyoming). I was the first call they received in favour of the bill. Your hypothesis is particularly trendy among educated tech people. I wonder if that’s contributing to their interests being sidelined from the political process.
That's appropriately cynical for HN, but this Gilens & Page study is a classic case of lying with statistics, at least when it comes to the conclusion.
America is an imperfect democracy, in other words — but it's hardly an oligarchy. When the rich and middle class disagree, each wins about half the time.
It's like saying that "Half the time I win and half the time everyone else loses, so it's fair." Which isn't really fair at all considering the size of the groups[1]
1. 1 vs Rest in the extreme example. n=|people who are rich| vs m=|people who are not rich| in the context we're considering.
There's no significant correlation between average citizen preferences and policy. If you want to reject the null hypothesis, you'll need evidence more than the statement "(many) politicians still care about these things." The world isn't fair.
> you'll need evidence more than the statement "(many) politicians still care about these things."
I can personally attest to language that made it into bills at the state and federal level on the back of a call with an overworked staffer. I have also watched bills die because nobody bothered calling in support, but a few did in opposition.
You’re right that the process of getting a bill initiated is frought. But the country’s needs are diverse, and in most electeds’ backyards a given issue isn’t a battleground. So they’ll swing whichever way is convenient and move on.
Where this doesn’t work is for big-ticket issues; you aren’t going to flip your elected’s position on abortion with a call. Your study uses survey data from 1981 to 2002; the fact that an issue is being broadly surveyed biases the result. (We have no survey on this bill as yet.)
Democrats are polling ahead of Republicans in most states which have enacted abortion bans. They also won a majority of congress seats which were up in 2022. They're doing so because 80% of all Americans support abortion as health care.
There's also the successful citizen-lead effort to put abortion as a right on the Ohio constitution. This despite a majority opposition from the state legislature.
> Democrats are polling ahead of Republicans in most states which have enacted abortion bans
That seems unlikely, given that Republicans are winning the nationwide general Congressional election polls and would certainly be doing better in red states than blue states.
If this was 0.1% true at ground level, your description of it would remain correct, though it would be misinformative (a major sin a year or two ago according to what I read in the news).
That from a "tiktok is bad for you" perspective. From a security and economic perspective there's a big difference between the company behind it being Meta or bytedance.
Then again, if tiktok people flock to reels we'd sort of have a big concentration of the social media market in the hands of Meta. Concerning, looking into this, etc.
Ultimately I do believe the issue here is more of a "we don't want Americans using a Chinese app" than anything else. And from there they seek reasons to justify the ban.