TikTok is one step closer to being banned in the USA

[Macallik86]

China has bots on all social media platforms already that manipulate the algorithms.

I don't deny that at all. I think a good analogy is cheating in videogames:

Bots cheating on Google/Facebook is like an individual player cheating in a game. There are still people in charge who are watching for discrepancies and making adjustments by playing whack-a-mole to reduce their efficiency:

Google is about to purge the AI spam littering its search Results

The company announced changes to its algorithm to deamplify websites that "feel like they were created for search engines instead of people"

qz.com

However what happens when the game developer is cheating? TikTok being able to tweak its algorithms is analogous to that... And as a player, there's no way that we have the context to call them out on it. Unlike Google/Facebook/Amazon, they don't have motives marginally in line w/ America.

The US is doing psy-ops on it's own citizens. They are not going to shut out foreign countries from running influence campaigns because it would keep them from running the same game on us.

I'm curious why you think that the US government only does things to others that it's allowed to test in itself. History suggests that there is a level of cruelty/indifference to other nations in our approach

The protecting citizens thing is a ridiculous argument.
So if your concern is algorithms, then why target TikTok and leave out Facebook/Twitter/Reddit, which are swarming with foreign bots? Regulation across all social media is one thing, but targeting TikTok alone? It doesn't pass the smell test.

My counterargument here is my analogy about a player in a videogame cheating versus a game developer cheating

It's crazy to say "not sustainable for a democracy" in defense of something so clearly undemocratic.

From my perspective, i am relatively far left when it comes to democracy. Also though, similar to how Christians views on Christianity evolve in modern world, I also think that what it means to protect a democracy is not a static answer. I really don't think that some of the historical approaches to democracy accounted for the possibility of a foreign app that can track and influence the thoughts/interests of millions of Americans.

 

[Macallik86]

I think perhaps one of the key discrepancies from both sides of the argument might lie in what each side thinks is possible w/ algorithms?

Am I correct in assuming that the idea that an app can guide millions of Americans towards views that hurt the US not only as a capitalistic country, but more importantly as a democracy seems implausible?

Or is there a more nuanced perspective where the possibility that millions of Americans perspectives being shaped by a foreign adversary still should not allow for the government to step in and protect its citizens? Is it still the free market when a government is intervening, just not our own?

TBH, it reminds me of forced government lockdowns during covid... the government thinks the risks to society as a whole outweighs the traditional approaches in a democracy. Historically, there have been times when the government has used this tactic nefariously (ie to better surveil the country after 9/11) but that doesn't mean that every subsequent action is a ploy.

 

[Pressure]

I think perhaps one of the key discrepancies from both sides of the argument might lie in what each side thinks is possible w/ algorithms?

Am I correct in assuming that the idea that an app can guide millions of Americans towards views that hurt the US not only as a capitalistic country, but more importantly as a democracy seems implausible?

Or is there a more nuanced perspective where the possibility that millions of Americans perspectives being shaped by a foreign adversary still should not allow for the government to step in and protect its citizens? Is it still the free market when a government is intervening, just not our own?

TBH, it reminds me of forced government lockdowns during covid... the government thinks the risks to society as a whole outweighs the traditional approaches in a democracy. Historically, there have been times when the government has used this tactic nefariously (ie to better surveil the country after 9/11) but that doesn't mean that every subsequent action is a ploy.

You're trying too hard to seem impartial. Pick a side nikka.

Jokes aside we understand than influence campaigns do work. Since we can't get a look inside the black box, the question being asked is largely irrelevant.

 

[bnew]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/14/tik-tok-bill-constitutional-questions/

If the House TikTok bill becomes law, the next stop is the courts​

The forced-sale measure has reinvigorated a debate over speech, national security and government power. Almost certainly, that debate will be settled in the courts.

By Drew Harwell

and

Eva Dou

Updated March 14, 2024 at 4:22 p.m. EDT | Published March 14, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

Giovanna Gonzalez of Chicago demonstrates Tuesday outside the Capitol after a news conference by TikTok creators to voice their opposition to the House bill that seeks to ban or force the sale of the video app. (Craig Hudson/Reuters)


Listen
13 min
Comment 131


The House’s approval of a bill calling for the forced sale or ban of the video app TikTok in the United States could end up launching a legal battle over the long-running and politically polarizing question: Is such a government effort constitutional?

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

On Thursday, the only conclusion that seemed certain: The resolution will come in the courts.

The bill’s overwhelming passage marked the first time a chamber of Congress has voted for the forced divestiture of a social media platform. TikTok, which is owned by the China-based tech giant ByteDance, is wildly popular, with 170 million users nationwide.

The legislation’s opponents have said it would violate American users’ First Amendment rights by taking away a platform they use for free expression. They’ve also warned against the government potentially overstepping constitutional boundaries by targeting a single company it dislikes.

“The proper relationship between government and citizen in the United States is that the citizen decides what to be exposed to and what ideologies to embrace,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said on the House floor Wednesday, speaking against the bill.

“How could it be that Congress should be working hard to devise a means to circumvent that prevailing principle of the First Amendment?” he added. “America confronts a grave challenge in China, and it will not prevail by becoming more like it.”

House passes bill that could ban TikTok
1:30

Representatives debated the merits of a bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok before passing it in a floor vote on March 13. (Video: The Washington Post)

The bill’s supporters, however, have argued that a forced sale is necessary to address the potential for the Chinese government to use TikTok for data harvesting and propaganda — national-security risks they say should outweigh free-speech concerns. TikTok’s users, they argue, could talk on some other platform if the app went away.

“You wouldn’t allow a radio tower owned by the Chinese to be put up right in the middle of Washington, D.C., and then allow it to just put out Chinese propaganda,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) said Wednesday. “The First Amendment does not give the Chinese Communist Party the right to American data or the right to manipulate the minds of Americans.”

The bill would give ByteDance 180 days to sell its U.S. TikTok operation to another interest outside China. After that deadline, the federal government would force Apple, Google and other tech companies to either stop serving up TikTok on their app stores and web-hosting services or face massive fines.

President Biden has said he would sign the legislation if it cleared Congress, but the bill’s fate is uncertain in the Senate, where competing legislation has been introduced. Some senators have backed the House legislation, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposed a similar effort last year, could hurt its chances by vowing to block it as “contrary to the Constitution.”

Several senators on Thursday preached caution about moving too quickly against TikTok after the House swiftly passed its legislation in just over a week, including Sens. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), the top Republican on the committee likely to review the measure, said the chamber should “examine” the bill and open it up to debate in a legislative markup, but declined to endorse the proposal as it stands.

Potential buyers are already circling. On CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday, former Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said he is putting together a consortium to try to buy the platform. “I think the legislation should pass, and I think it should be sold,” Mnuchin said. “It’s a great business, and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok.”

TikTok’s chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, said in a video posted to TikTok and X Wednesday that the company would “do all we can, including exercising our legal rights, to protect this amazing platform that we have built with you.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) talks with reporters at the Capitol last month. Paul opposed legislation last year that sought to ban TikTok and could thwart the House legislation this year. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


Paul and some other Republicans have been joined by civil-liberties groups on the left and right in slamming the bill. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, urged the Senate in a statement Wednesday to reject the “blatant censorship” bill as “unconstitutional and reckless.” She said the House had “voted to violate the First Amendment rights of more than half of the country.”

Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy research fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said in an interview that the First Amendment question will come down to whether the government has “a compelling state interest” and is “using the least-restrictive means when it comes to speech.”

Of the suggestion that TikTok users could simply switch to another platform, she said, “We wouldn’t tolerate it in an offline circumstance — the argument that they can just go to another bookstore, or you can just read another newspaper — if the government were to shut down specific venues for speech in that regard. The same is true for the social media context and TikTok.”

Previous federal measures to restrict TikTok have faced resistance in the courts. After the Trump administration pushed to force a sale or ban of TikTok, two federal judges ruled that the crackdown was based on claims of a national-security threat that was, as Obama appointee Wendy Beetlestone wrote, “phrased in the hypothetical” and would “exceed the bounds of the law.”

While “the ultimate purpose (or intended object) of those prohibitions is to prevent China from accessing those data and spreading disinformation on TikTok,” wrote another judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, the government’s actions would lead to “indirect regulations” of personal communications and the exchange of information in an “arbitrary and capricious” way.

 

[bnew]

Montana’s statewide ban of TikTok was also halted last year by a federal judge, who wrote that it had a “pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment” and “violates the Constitution in more ways than one.”

The judge, Donald Molloy, also rejected the argument that a ban was acceptable under the law because users could still speak on other platforms, saying that limits on speech should be targeted and precise — a “constitutional scalpel.”

Molloy did not, however, weigh in on a separate legal debate: whether government actions like the House’s TikTok bill would violate the Constitution’s “bill of attainder” clause, which prohibits using legislation to punish a person for an alleged crime without a trial.

Some lawmakers have argued that any bill singling out a particular business would violate that clause. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) argued last year against naming TikTok in legislation being considered then, saying, “There is reason to believe that legislation targeted solely at TikTok would be overturned by the courts because of the Constitution’s prohibition on bills of attainder.”

The bill names TikTok but says it would apply to all apps the government decrees are “controlled by foreign adversary companies.” But TikTok and its supporters have pointed to what they say are indications from the bill’s sponsors that the bill was unfairly targeted at them — including, most notably, that the bill document published online last week was titled “TIKTOK.XML.”

Brendan Carr, a Republican on the Federal Communications Commission and vocal TikTok critic, circulated a memo in recent days arguing the bill would not violate the clause because it was instituting future restrictions, not focusing on the past.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Brendan Carr, a Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, has circulated a memo in recent days challenging an argument by some lawmakers that the House TikTok bill would violate the Constitution’s “bill of attainder” clause, which prohibits using legislation to punish a person for an alleged crime without a trial. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)


And a September report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted that China’s Huawei Technologies and Russia’s Kaspersky Lab had previously failed in challenging restrictions on their U.S. businesses based on bill of attainder arguments.

The bill’s proponents have tried to distance themselves from a ban, believing a forced sale would be more legally watertight. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, on Tuesday said he wanted “to be clear” that the bill was not about banning TikTok. “The ultimate object of the bill is about a question of ownership,” he said. “Do we want TikTok as a platform to be owned by an American company or owned by China?”

But they could be undermined by recent comments from supporters like Crenshaw, who posted on X last week, “No one is trying to disguise anything. You’re correct — we want to ban TikTok.” (Crenshaw has since said the bill is not a ban.)

TikTok supporters also have argued that a sale within 180 days would be so challenging to maneuver that a ban might be inescapable. China has said it would oppose a forced sale using export-control measures, and TikTok’s estimated price tag, in the tens of billions of dollars, would put it in the realm of only the biggest corporate giants, for whom federal regulators may have antitrust concerns.

The bill’s backers have noted that there is, however, some precedent for restrictions against foreign ownership of broadcast media in the United States. In the Communications Act of 1934, Congress prohibited foreign individuals and companies from being majority owners in U.S. public radio and TV stations, stemming from national security concerns raised during World War I.

The restriction remains in place today, though it does not affect cable TV, and the FCC may grant exceptions. The FCC does not have authority to regulate the likes of TikTok or YouTube, and it is unclear if judges would consider the measure similar enough to count as legal precedent.

The House bill affecting TikTok was drafted with support from senior Biden administration officials, including Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and top officials in national intelligence and defense. Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute, said the co-sponsors and the White House seem “fairly confident” it will be inoculated against constitutional concerns.

Supporters of TikTok outside the Capitol on Wednesday. The video app’s defenders note that it is used by lawmakers, journalists, political organizers and even Chinese dissidents to share their views and learn information. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


But the country’s precedent for national security outweighing free speech, Kreps said, is built on decades-old cases from times of military conflict, such as the 1798 Sedition Act, which criminalized “false, scandalous and malicious writing” about the federal government.

“Once national security is invoked, it gives almost unfettered latitude for the government to sidestep First Amendment concerns, because now this is almost like a wartime footing,” Kreps said. “It is unusual that this would take place outside a wartime circumstance. But the framing of this legislation is invoking that kind of threat.”

The FCC’s bans on foreign ownership of radio and TV stations were first imposed during a time of limited airwaves, not a sprawling global internet. “It does feel in that sense that we’re going back to some kind of Cold War-like media environment,” Kreps said, “where we’re now going to erect boundaries in the service of national security.”

TikTok’s defenders note that the app is used by lawmakers, journalists, political organizers and even Chinese dissidents to share their views and learn information. Since 2020, the number of TikTok users who say they get news on the app has almost doubled, according to the Pew Research Center, with a third of adults under 30 in the United States now using it to follow current events.

 

[bnew]

But among the bill’s “yes” votes was Rep. Jeff Jackson (D-N.C.), who routinely posts about the unseen realities of Congress to his 2.5 million TikTok followers. In a TikTok post explaining why, he said he didn’t expect the bill would lead to a ban and added, “I think we can solve this problem and keep marching on.”

Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), the leaders of the House select committee on China who last week introduced the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, said the bill was not about “shutting down speech” but about targeting the security risks of foreign social media ownership.

“Today we send a clear message that we will not tolerate our adversaries weaponizing our freedoms against us,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), whose committee advanced the TikTok bill, said before the vote.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) on Wednesday. The three lawmakers played key roles in the legislation targeting TikTok. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


But the federal government has yet to provide examples of the Chinese government forcing TikTok to share data or skew its recommendation algorithms, further fueling debates over the necessity of such a widespread ban.

“If TikTok truly is breaking laws on a major scale, let us start a legal case with fact-finding and an adversarial process,” the economist Tyler Cowen wrote this week. “Surely such a path would uncover the wrongdoing under consideration.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Wednesday he was clear-eyed about the online threats posed by China but still opposed the “enormously rushed” bill, saying a federal industry-wide privacy law would offer broader protections for Americans in a way that is “consistent with our commitment to freedom of expression.”

“It’s our adversaries that shut down social media platforms, that shut down radio stations, that shut down newspapers,” Himes said in an interview. “We trust Americans to be good stewards of their democracy, and we do not trust the government to decide what platforms Americans have access to.”

The bill’s passage kicked off a victory lap from TikTok critics. Jacob Helberg, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a government advisory agency, posted on X after the vote the names of the representatives who voted against the TikTok bill and said, “Remember them this November. Get in touch with [Alberto E. Martinez] to help fund their opponents.”

Martinez is the executive vice president of public affairs for Targeted Victory, a Republican consulting firm that Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, paid to orchestrate a nationwide media and lobbying campaign slamming TikTok as the “real threat” to American teens.

Targeted Victory and Helberg declined to comment. Meta spokesman Andy Stone said, “We don’t know about this project and are not involved.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, said in a statement that the bill was a “betrayal of the First Amendment and a great gift to authoritarians around the world, who will soon be citing this profoundly misguided bill to justify new restrictions on their own citizens’ access to ideas, information and media from abroad.”

But such measures are not new. In 2021, Nigeria’s government banned Twitter across the country, saying it had been used to spread “misinformation and fake news” in a way that “could tear some countries apart.” The State Department chastised the Nigerian government then, saying, “Unduly restricting the ability of Nigerians to report, gather, and disseminate opinions and information has no place in a democracy.”

Jacob Bogage, Ellen Nakashima, Will Oremus and Aaron Schaffer contributed to this report.

 

[bnew]

The TikTok Bill Could Get a Lot of Apps Banned

The United States could make TikTok the first app banned by law, but technology lawyers warn it won't be the last.

gizmodo.com

The TikTok Bill Could Get a Lot of Apps Banned​

The United States could make TikTok the first app banned by law, but technology lawyers warn it won't be the last.​

By

Maxwell Zeff

Published8 hours ago

Comments (47)

TikTok CEO Shou Chew.

Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post (Getty Images)

A bill banning TikTok, unless it is sold, passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday and is on its way to the Senate. The bill being rushed through Congress names TikTok outright, but it also bans other apps the President determines to be a “national security threat.” Technology lawyers are concerned these vague terms could get other apps and websites banned as well.

“Nobody actually knows who’s covered by this bill,” said Eric Goldman, an internet law professor at Santa Clara University in a phone interview with Gizmodo. “We focus on the TikTok piece because that’s obviously who would be targeted first. But this law has uncertain effects because we really don’t even know who we’re talking about.”

Outside of banning TikTok, this bill is anything but clear. An app or website must meet two qualifications to be banned. First, the app must be a large platform that allows users to create profiles for sharing content. That would include Gizmodo’s website, where users log in to post comments, for example. Second, you must also be “controlled by a foreign adversary,” which could include an app that is merely “subject to the direction or control” of someone in Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran.

Goldman says this bill doesn’t consider how many apps and websites fall under it. He’s joined by 65 House Congressional members who voted against this bill, many of whom say the legislation doesn’t consider freedom of speech or claim it was rushed — the bill lasted just four days in the House. Goldman calls the bill a “performative stunt” that’s meant to send a signal to voters on China.

You could make the case that a lot of apps fall under the TikTok ban. Russian operatives used Facebook groups to influence voters in the 2016 election. Just months ago, on Elon Musk’s X, the Iran-backed terror group Hamas spread misinformation while paying for promotion services and blue checkmarks. Would Facebook and X be “subject to the direction or control” of Russia and Iran under the TikTok bill’s definition?

“There’s plenty of room here for creative interpretation for how someone could be in a foreign country calling the shots without being an owner,” said Evan Brown, a Chicago-based lawyer with a focus on technology. “The President really has the unchecked power to put another app on this list.”

The TikTok bill can ban apps with as few as one million monthly users, which is roughly the size of tiny apps like Mastodon. For reference, TikTok is roughly one thousand times bigger, with one billion monthly users. The wide range of apps covered by the TikTok bill, and the vague terms to categorize them as “controlled by a foreign adversary” gives the President a lot of power.

The entire discussion for this bill has been around TikTok, but legal experts point out how this will impact America’s app ecosystem. Currently, the President and Congress have almost no power over what apps can and cannot exist, but the TikTok bill changes that. The legislation may pass through Congress quickly, but reversing the decision is a much slower process.

To be clear, TikTok has been no darling to anyone other than its parent company Bytedance. The app confirmed Congressional fears this past week by launching a push notification campaign and asking users to call lawmakers to fight this bill. A Chinese foreign ministry official said a TikTok ban would “ come back to bite the United States,” on Wednesday. There are legitimate claims about banning TikTok, but this bill is bigger than that.

This is not the first TikTok bill we’ve seen, but it could be the last, and we’ll have to live with the consequences of that if it’s written into law. The key factor now is if Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer brings it to the floor. Schumer indicated he won’t rush the bill, and it remains to be seen if senators will consider how the TikTok bill is not only about TikTok.

 

[mastermind]

The TikTok Bill Could Get a Lot of Apps Banned

The United States could make TikTok the first app banned by law, but technology lawyers warn it won't be the last.

gizmodo.com

The TikTok Bill Could Get a Lot of Apps Banned​

The United States could make TikTok the first app banned by law, but technology lawyers warn it won't be the last.​

By

Maxwell Zeff

Published8 hours ago

Comments (47)

TikTok CEO Shou Chew.

Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post (Getty Images)

A bill banning TikTok, unless it is sold, passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday and is on its way to the Senate. The bill being rushed through Congress names TikTok outright, but it also bans other apps the President determines to be a “national security threat.” Technology lawyers are concerned these vague terms could get other apps and websites banned as well.

“Nobody actually knows who’s covered by this bill,” said Eric Goldman, an internet law professor at Santa Clara University in a phone interview with Gizmodo. “We focus on the TikTok piece because that’s obviously who would be targeted first. But this law has uncertain effects because we really don’t even know who we’re talking about.”

Outside of banning TikTok, this bill is anything but clear. An app or website must meet two qualifications to be banned. First, the app must be a large platform that allows users to create profiles for sharing content. That would include Gizmodo’s website, where users log in to post comments, for example. Second, you must also be “controlled by a foreign adversary,” which could include an app that is merely “subject to the direction or control” of someone in Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran.

Goldman says this bill doesn’t consider how many apps and websites fall under it. He’s joined by 65 House Congressional members who voted against this bill, many of whom say the legislation doesn’t consider freedom of speech or claim it was rushed — the bill lasted just four days in the House. Goldman calls the bill a “performative stunt” that’s meant to send a signal to voters on China.

You could make the case that a lot of apps fall under the TikTok ban. Russian operatives used Facebook groups to influence voters in the 2016 election. Just months ago, on Elon Musk’s X, the Iran-backed terror group Hamas spread misinformation while paying for promotion services and blue checkmarks. Would Facebook and X be “subject to the direction or control” of Russia and Iran under the TikTok bill’s definition?

“There’s plenty of room here for creative interpretation for how someone could be in a foreign country calling the shots without being an owner,” said Evan Brown, a Chicago-based lawyer with a focus on technology. “The President really has the unchecked power to put another app on this list.”

The TikTok bill can ban apps with as few as one million monthly users, which is roughly the size of tiny apps like Mastodon. For reference, TikTok is roughly one thousand times bigger, with one billion monthly users. The wide range of apps covered by the TikTok bill, and the vague terms to categorize them as “controlled by a foreign adversary” gives the President a lot of power.

The entire discussion for this bill has been around TikTok, but legal experts point out how this will impact America’s app ecosystem. Currently, the President and Congress have almost no power over what apps can and cannot exist, but the TikTok bill changes that. The legislation may pass through Congress quickly, but reversing the decision is a much slower process.

To be clear, TikTok has been no darling to anyone other than its parent company Bytedance. The app confirmed Congressional fears this past week by launching a push notification campaign and asking users to call lawmakers to fight this bill. A Chinese foreign ministry official said a TikTok ban would “ come back to bite the United States,” on Wednesday. There are legitimate claims about banning TikTok, but this bill is bigger than that.

This is not the first TikTok bill we’ve seen, but it could be the last, and we’ll have to live with the consequences of that if it’s written into law. The key factor now is if Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer brings it to the floor. Schumer indicated he won’t rush the bill, and it remains to be seen if senators will consider how the TikTok bill is not only about TikTok.

@Basaglia was talking about this on Fiyastarter.


You shouldn't set a precedent of this because it doesn't stop with TikTok.

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

I don't deny that at all. I think a good analogy is cheating in videogames:

Bots cheating on Google/Facebook is like an individual player cheating in a game. There are still people in charge who are watching for discrepancies and making adjustments by playing whack-a-mole to reduce their efficiency:

Google is about to purge the AI spam littering its search Results

The company announced changes to its algorithm to deamplify websites that "feel like they were created for search engines instead of people"

qz.com

However what happens when the game developer is cheating? TikTok being able to tweak its algorithms is analogous to that... And as a player, there's no way that we have the context to call them out on it. Unlike Google/Facebook/Amazon, they don't have motives marginally in line w/ America.

I'm curious why you think that the US government only does things to others that it's allowed to test in itself. History suggests that there is a level of cruelty/indifference to other nations in our approach

My counterargument here is my analogy about a player in a videogame cheating versus a game developer cheating

From my perspective, i am relatively far left when it comes to democracy. Also though, similar to how Christians views on Christianity evolve in modern world, I also think that what it means to protect a democracy is not a static answer. I really don't think that some of the historical approaches to democracy accounted for the possibility of a foreign app that can track and influence the thoughts/interests of millions of Americans.

Using your video game analogy, what's happening is the government is targeting Nintendo with the claims that it's to tamper down cheating, and then forcing Nintendo to sell to Microsoft or be banned. It makes no sense.
We're talking about an app, and you're making it sound like China runs our state media.

The notion that Google/Facebook/Amazon have motives for anything other than profit and growing their stranglehold over the internet is a joke. It's completely naive to think that any of them have the best interest of US citizens in mind. As I've already pointed out, Facebook has literally already sold user data to China. Cambridge Analytica has already been brought up in this thread. They will sell out the entire country for a buck, and then use that money to lobby congress. Zuckerberg is the one who has been pushing for the TikTok ban for competitive reasons. Do you really believe he's spending all that money for the purpose of national security? It's clear none of them have the health of our nation as a priority, nor does anyone expect them to. Saying "only US corporations should be able to track and influence our society in nefarious ways!" is insane. Why allow anyone to use our data in that way? Why target one company instead of the entire industry? You still haven't adequately explained why it should be allowed on other platforms, and TikTok needs to be singled out. "Because they're Chinese" doesn't cut it.

Sticking with your video game theme, you should be aware that "Managed Democracy" is a joke and a satire on fascism. We should not be looking to Helldivers for influence in our government.

 

[Macallik86]

Using your video game analogy, what's happening is the government is targeting Nintendo with the claims that it's to tamper down cheating, and then forcing Nintendo to sell to Microsoft or be banned. It makes no sense.
We're talking about an app, and you're making it sound like China runs our state media.

I found a good reference listening to the Hard Fork podcast. The Communications Act of 1934 prohibits foreign individuals and companies from being majority owners in U.S. public radio and TV stations, stemming from national security concerns raised during World War I. Fun fact, Rupert Murdoch becamse a US Citizen before he could fully control the US aspect of his news empire.

Over time (including a ruling in 2017) the FCC have relaxed the nationality requirements as TV stations/radio lose their power, Conversely though, as apps gain more power and influence, it seems logical that they would be met w/ increased regulation... Knowing now that similar laws have been a part of our democracy for the better part of a century, how does that change your perspective if at all?.

The notion that Google/Facebook/Amazon have motives for anything other than profit and growing their stranglehold over the internet is a joke. It's completely naive to think that any of them have the best interest of US citizens in mind. As I've already pointed out, Facebook has literally already sold user data to China. Cambridge Analytica has already been brought up in this thread. They will sell out the entire country for a buck, and then use that money to lobby congress. Zuckerberg is the one who has been pushing for the TikTok ban for competitive reasons. Do you really believe he's spending all that money for the purpose of national security?

No disagreement from me on any of this. I've already stated that American companies are driven by capitalism.

It's clear none of them have the health of our nation as a priority, nor does anyone expect them to. Saying "only US corporations should be able to track and influence our society in nefarious ways!" is insane. Why allow anyone to use our data in that way? Why target one company instead of the entire industry? You still haven't adequately explained why it should be allowed on other platforms, and TikTok needs to be singled out. "Because they're Chinese" doesn't cut it.

Let me try again. American companies are beholden to their shareholders. TikTok is backed by the Chinese Government who are beholden to their own citizens. Their goals as a country therefore impacts how they are treated.

 

[mastermind]

Conversely though, as apps gain more power and influence, it seems logical that they would be met w/ increased regulation

But they haven’t and have shown no intent or interest on this.

We are still using the Telecomms Act of 1996 as the basis for internet regulations.

Banning TikTok so Zuckernerd can eat isn‘t the answer.

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

I found a good reference listening to the Hard Fork podcast. The Communications Act of 1934 prohibits foreign individuals and companies from being majority owners in U.S. public radio and TV stations, stemming from national security concerns raised during World War I. Fun fact, Rupert Murdoch becamse a US Citizen before he could fully control the US aspect of his news empire.

Over time (including a ruling in 2017) the FCC have relaxed the nationality requirements as TV stations/radio lose their power, Conversely though, as apps gain more power and influence, it seems logical that they would be met w/ increased regulation... Knowing now that similar laws have been a part of our democracy for the better part of a century, how does that change your perspective if at all?.

No disagreement from me on any of this. I've already stated that American companies are driven by capitalism.

Let me try again. American companies are beholden to their shareholders. TikTok is backed by the Chinese Government who are beholden to their own citizens. Their goals as a country therefore impacts how they are treated.

Boss, we're going in circles. As I've already said "they're foreign" does not do enough to explain why we would allow the same security threat as long as they are owned by American corporations. I don't buy it at all. Having US shareholders does nothing to prevent Facebook being used for nefarious purposes, even by foreign actors, as proven by recent history. I don't know why you keep bringing it up like it makes it less of a concern. I trust these corporations even less than I trust our government, which is not a lot. Forcing TikTok to sell to American owners is just not the answer to your national security concerns. Rupert Murdoch becoming a citizen and then wreaking havoc on American politics is just further proof that simple xenophobia is not enough protection.

Nothing about this bill points to nat sec as the concern. Some members of the house have outright stated that their intent is to be able to control narratives they don't agree with. Saying it's to stifle views that are "against American values" is undemocratic, no matter how you try to spin it.

This conversation just isn't getting anywhere.

 

[88m3]

I see the crazy conspiracy folks have latched onto this now

protecting our data from China is a good enough reason for a sale

image spending so much time advocating doing nothing


also love the caping for a genocidal oppressive Chinese government, vey "progressive" of you guys

 

[DoubleClutch]

Tik Tok being banned is just a hot news story that will never actually happen but is good for politicians to debate about

Like reparations

 

[Arizax2]

Them young folks won't forget this if this is signed into law. There's to much money tho on the line for TikTok so they may have to sell it. Not sure if they have a choice on what else they can do.