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.
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 different goal.
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.
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)
So, I guess China had it right with its great firewall then, right? I mean you have to protect your national interest against foreign corporations. I didn't know Americans would agree with CCP policies like this.
From the perspective of the Chinese government, yes.
I would say America has as much right to be upset at China blocking American websites within its borders, as China has to be upset at the US blocking Tiktok within its borders.
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 digital economy.
Foreign Ownership Does Not Equate to a National Security Threat
There is no publicly available evidence proving that TikTok has provided U.S. user data to a foreign government. TikTok has already implemented localization measures for data storage and operations (e.g., the "Texas Project"). In contrast, many U.S. tech companies (e.g., Facebook, Google) have faced scrutiny over data privacy issues but have not been restricted due to foreign ownership. Restricting TikTok solely based on "foreign ownership" lacks factual support.
Economic Impact: TikTok Is a Lifeline for Millions
TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S. According to 2023 data, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. economy and supported at least 300,000 jobs. Restricting TikTok would directly threaten the livelihoods of these individuals, causing significant harm to social stability and economic vitality.
A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Rather than imposing a blanket restriction on TikTok, it would be more effective to strengthen data privacy protections through legislation, ensuring that all social media platforms (whether foreign or domestic) adhere to the same security standards. For example, TikTok could be required to further localize data storage and undergo independent audits. This approach would safeguard national security while avoiding unnecessary harm to users and creators.
>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 digital economy.
I don't understand your point. Yes, TikTok and traditional media are different. But there are similarities. And you haven't pointed out any difference between them that would make a law restricting traditional media reasonable but a law restricting TikTok unreasonable.
>A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Why capitalize every letter of the sentence? This feels like it was generated by an LLM.
the crazy thing is the US isn't even limiting all foreign ownership with this act. all it says is that four adversary countries can't own it -- china, NK, Russia, Iran.
Sure, but just because its law doesnt mean its just. If you are just talking about "the law" you are talking about something very different than everyone else. Even if its the law, its obviously a violation of the intent behind free speech to limit speech only to those who the government can intimidate. If the only way to have free speech is to be within arms reach of the government's threats you arent really a bastion of free speech, you just practice speech within the bounds of what the government will allow. And as we have recently seen, that can change dramatically depending on who is paying.
A point I think most people don’t understand is that the government interest in TikTok has little to do with exploiting user data per se, a lot of other companies do that. The issue is that TikTok is somewhat unique in being aggressively weaponized in currently very active “grey zone” conflicts.
This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters. Geopolitic strategies are increasingly executed as grey zone warfare, and some hybrid warfare, because the costs and risks of traditional overt warfare have become unacceptably high.
This is the very top of the "Description" section of the Wikipedia page for "Grey-zone (international relations)"[0]:
> Use of the term grey-zone is widespread in national security circles, but there is no universal agreement on the definition of grey-zone, or even whether it is a useful term, with views about the term ranging from "faddish" or "vague", to "useful" or "brilliant"
It goes on to say:
> Grey zone warfare generally means a middle, unclear space that exists between direct conflict and peace in international relations.
The ADL head (Greenblatt) noted they had a major issue with young people seeing footage from the front lines negatively impacting perception of Israel, this is in a leaked voice memo from early 2024. Ban legislation followed within a month.
"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.
This misunderstands the topic, it literally has nothing to do with information access.
The Chinese government invested a lot for decades in R&D around population-scale behavioral manipulation, including running a lot of experiments on their own population. It was an impressive research effort; other countries invest in this too but the Chinese commitment to mastery of it was next level. Not an issue.
These capabilities and techniques can make populations wired into it dance like predictable puppets in aggregate but they don’t work that effectively over generic undifferentiated communication channels because humans are too chaotic. It requires tight real-time feedback, control, and instrumentation of the information channels with sufficient critical mass population-wise to matter. Those kinds of tight feedback and control loops under direct control of government systems for constructive manipulation aren’t really a thing at most social media companies. You can spam propaganda but that is qualitatively inferior.
Divestiture of TikTok removes the access and control the Chinese government needs to effect outcomes with TikTok beyond typical propaganda and influence operations.
Most countries desire this capability but the technical implementation and requirement of sufficiently tight control of the channel has been a formidable barrier. China outright banned any vehicle that had the potential to allow foreign governments to do the same in their own country.
All of this has been known and discussed in national security settings for decades. The difficulty of implementation in the real world made it mostly a hypothetical risk at any non-trivial scale until TikTok.
The most insidious aspect is that sophisticated operational analytics has made it such that the manipulation may seem completely unrelated to the desired population-scale effect, it is not propaganda in a conventional sense. Done well, the individual never perceives it but the aggregate effect reliably emerges. The extent to which humans can be analytically manipulated in very indirect ways at scale is both fascinating and scary.
(Many years ago I used to work on problems related to population-scale operational behavioral analysis. China was on the cutting edge of this research even back then. None of the experimental theory is new, but apparently the tech finally caught up.)
“More open access to information” is not the adversary’s goal, either. Is that goal served by preserving the adversary’s control over the information environment?
I think it's more the other way round, that they don't want others to have the same powers they do?
If you control the "last mile" infrastructure, you have a
pretty good idea what's going on. If you control the mobile network, you can track everyone, and flash their baseband processor if you like.
(see also: concerns about Huawei equipment in our internet infrastructure)
The documents that Snowden released confirmed that this kind of thing was going on. To be honest, I don't think that really surprised anyone in the security community.
We just don't want China to have the same power to monitor our citizens as we have ourselves.
> This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters
Looks like you're just confirming what OP said
Might as well look up the definition of "5th column"
Why drop bombs on your adversary when you can use social media influence to achieve the same ends of reducing productivity? This is far cheaper and gives you plausible deniability.
Whether they want or not, they cannot. The democratic system, even deficient as one in US, still does its job and works against blatant information suppression.
It has absolutely made things more difficult not having distinct spheres of information with well defined boundaries. It's genuinely made things much more difficult to plan about. The global Internet absolutely has made a lot of people upset for a lot of reasons that make intuitive sense.
That's what growing conservative "anti globalist" movements backed by national security elements are really about. Not ultimately immigration or racism or tax cuts (that's how you get the tubes on board), but about how the inability to keep civilians out of information conflicts has made running countries incredibly difficult.
This is one area where China absolutely has the right approach and we need to wake up about what it means in the public rather than complain that we can't scroll silly waste of time videos all the time. The US public is incredibly uneducated about this concept and why it poses a threat, so the discussion needs to be had.
I think we should be far more critical of American internet companies as well and quite a few of them should probably be banned because they are creating the same sort of problem w.r.t how we can practically organize a functioning society. That's the unfortunate thing, is a bunch of libertarians in silicon valley a while back decided to invent a business model that could cause a global war.
Do you have any evidence supporting anything you claimed as a matter of fact? "grey zone conflicts", "aggressively weaponized", "national security circles" are just scary/serious sounding phrases that sound a lot more legitimate than I suspect they actually are.
AOC published a video talking about how she (and some other representatives) believed that the arguments that were presented to them were just as vague, nonspecific and theoretical as these online arguments I keep reading.
Gray zone conflicts: Evidence shows that China, Russia, and other foreign governments are actively using social media to manipulate and influence Americans through covert and deceptive tactics.
“Aggressively weaponized”: These conflicts rely on information as a primary weapon because it is more cost-effective and impactful than traditional warfare.
“National security circles”: This term commonly refers to the U.S. security establishment, including its agencies and defense systems.
Pro-Russian, right-wing candidate (Calin Georgescu) with zero funding becomes leading candidate overnight. Turns out there's coordinate campaigns to push him on social media channels, like TikTok, where tens of thousands of accounts were opened a couple of weeks prior to polls opening. All pushing Calin.
what “false flag” war has the US engaged in? would love a single legit example of a false flag, closest i can think of is gulf of tonkin which was quite some time ago and not actually a false flag.
i hate that nationalism is becoming another hyper-polarized topic - now we get people who are ridiculously jingoistic/anti-cosmopolitan and other people who reject fully the notion that a government’s first responsibility is to its own citizens. both are radical views that are no way to govern a well-functioning republic.
These arguments become so vague to me that it just feels like an excuse for governments to do whatever they want.
Calling it "Grey zone conflict" feels like the "Deep state" shenanigans... It's primarily marketing to achieve your goal.
We've seen the invasion of Iraq; that was all based on lies. We got ISIS as a result... "National security circles" look for evidence so it fits their narrative. Like watching FoxNews. It's a very narrowminded funnel of carefully picked pieces of evidence. They are not truth seekers that aim to provide a holistic view of the situation. No, they are scared aged men who love to control the narrative and see danger in everything in the hope to get more funding for their next projects.
Btw; banning TikTok is a good thing, but for other reasons entirely.
The "aggressively weaponized in currently very active grey zone conflicts" sounds very very scary! Do you actually mean that young Americans are using it to teach each other about the US-enabled Israeli occupation of Palestine?
A guy in Romania nobody knew existed almost became a president thanks to TikTok [0] last December. Almost every right-wing party in Europe has a huge presence in TikTok, from the Balkans to Western Europe. I guess that’s what they mean.
I’m sorry, but not everything on this world is Israel/Palestine.
TikTok is somewhat unique in presenting a real, non-us-based competitor to FB/Instagram. A bit of lobbying to block your competitor is a deft move on Mark’s part
>The issue is that TikTok is somewhat unique in being aggressively weaponized in currently very active “grey zone” conflicts.
That has been happening since time immemorial.
What is actually the issue is that for the first time ever in the post-WW2 Pax Americana era, media is being weaponized by a powerful non-American state (China).
America does through Facebook, Mysterious Twitter X, Reddit, CNN, Fox News, PBS, et al. what China does through TikTok. If anything, other countries should also seriously consider banning foreign media and realize insofar as future geopolitics that Pax Americana is ending.
The editorial lines of Fox News are completely different to CNN and PBS. Different subreddits are completely different. The idea that they're all part of some conspiracy run by the US government is very strange.
There's an interesting cognitive bias in the western media that tends to define freedom of the press (and freedom of expression) as exactly what is perceived as freedom in this side of the iron curtain.
Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.
As long as we're not discussing ways to circumvent the American firewall, since there isn't one, we can still say that one country tries but sometimes fails to live up to a free speech ideal perfectly -making exceptions for national security- and the other is blatant authoritarian.
Just a hypothesis: the fact that there's no need for an American firewall might be a consequence of the information controls being enacted at the level of platform moderation, or DNS resolution.
(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).
In many European countries this still includes regulations for publishers - while social media are somehow excluded from these regulations (and that explains why society is in state that is now when lies are not confronted but amplified).
Yes. I was recently in Indonesia and shocked at how many high-profile sites are blocked at the DNS-level there, e.g. Reddit.
Is Reddit a great place? Eh. Is it critical to daily life in Indonesia? Of course not. But what I witnessed was censorship, full-stop.
I understand that the U.S. is not blocking TikTok at the DNS level. And that there are valid concerns over sharing user data and government influence over TikTok. But in my view, this is still censorship. Instead of allowing individuals decide whether or not to use TikTok, my government decided to ban it.
The whole argument over selling TikTok to a U.S.-based company is bullshit, imo. What kind of precedent is that? I use online services from all over the world, and in doing so decide to allow my usage to fall (to some extent) under the jurisdiction of that country.
Censoring is different to banning though. Banning in this case is the correct word to use, censoring isn’t. You can censor things on a platform, you can’t censor a platform entirely - that is a ban.
The censors in this case are Apple and Google, acting at the behest of the US Government. This news isn't about Tiktok censoring, rather about it being censored. Apple and Google are the platforms/publishers.
(There are also a whole host of other service providers that might be put into the position of being censors if Tiktok were to ignore the law and continue working for sidedloaded apps).
I agree with your linguistic point and the interaction of bias and ideology.
It's probably worth adding, though, that Libgen, TikTok, Porn and News Outlets would all be censored/banned/deliberately-excluded-from-culture-by-people-with-legitimate-power for different reasons.
I think TikTok and News Outlets would be the most closely aligned in this sense.
1. Libgen domains are "seized" - only the domains got seized, the website is still operational.
2. tiktok "goes dark", yes because it was an action of tiktok to go dark with the hope that they will be operational next week. Nobody banned them and even Biden said he would not enforce it so they could have simply do nothing and wait for the next week.
3. "censor" porn or news outlets, I think thats common usage.
This morning I felt the urge to download TikTok for the first time. I did, but I didn't bother creating an account.
There is a passage in the book Life of Pi, where Pi's family is gathered and ready to leave India for Canada. And his mother does something out of the ordinary:
> The day before our departure she pointed at a cigarette wallah and earnestly asked, "Should we get a pack or two?"
> Father replied, "They have tobacco in Canada. And why do you want to buy cigarettes? We don't smoke."
> Yes, they have tobacco in Canada-but do they have Gold Flake cigarettes? Do they have Arun ice cream? Are the bicycles Heroes? Are the televisions Onidas? Are the cars Ambassadors? Are the bookshops Higginbothams'? Such, I suspect, were the questions that swirled in Mother's mind as she contemplated buying cigarettes.
Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it. Will I use it if it is reinstated? Probably not. But I downloaded it anyway the same way Mrs Gita Patel wanted to buy cigarettes. It wasn’t about need or use. It was about the loss.
I would stand behind a tiktok ban if it was for the right reasons. But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.
There is a statement from India’s information technology ministry, after 20 Indian soldiers died during border skirmish with China. When India banned TikTok in 2020 [0]
> Chinese mobile apps were stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data.
> The compilation of such data, and its mining and profiling by elements hostile to India is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures
If they were really concerned about privacy, they would strengthen privacy laws. Adopt a GDPR like framework with opt-in consent and force platforms to implement a GrapheneOS like model with mock permissions and scoped consent. Banning apps is just a veiled attempt to appease other interests.
India is also an authoritarian government, is that something to celebrate? Also it is hilarious that they complain about TikTok but when you live in India, you realize that half their mobile phones themselves are from Chinese manufacturers. Some of them have Indian manufacturing units but it doesn’t take much scrutiny to realize that this is all political theater.
> Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it.
This, to me, is a weird stance. On what grounds did you advocate against it?
I just had to create a new account tonight after the ban[0] to keep using it. When you first start TikTok you might be presented with a wave of seemingly crap, bizarre or boring videos, but after several minutes of liking and watching the good stuff the algorithm very quickly starts serving you some excellent content.
There is some really, really great, really smart content on TikTok. I have always advocated for TikTok on those grounds.
[0] my accounts are all on USA servers and you can't log into them even through a VPN
It is incredibly addictive inducing drug like state:
> You’ll just be in this pleasurable dopamine state, carried away. It’s almost hypnotic, you’ll keep watching and watching. - Dr. Julie Albright
> You keep scrolling, she says, because sometimes you see something you like, and sometimes you don’t. And that differentiation — very similar to a slot machine in Vegas — is key.
I detest slot machines, so many lives wasted away, and I feel like we already spend too much time on computers to the detriment of both ourselves and society, let alone giving the CCP a hand to manipulate people on top of everything else
I find the hard core defenders of tiktok, such as yourself, weird. I know for a fact you get propaganda videos shoved in between your feed of 'good stuff' that you enjoy watching, but I know you wont admit that, or downplay it or say you can scroll past it. It doesn't change the fact the platform is used by the CCP to push a narrative, and while it might not work on you, there's some 120m users in America on TT. That's an awful lot of people who are being fed bullshit and lies.
Yes, there is high quality long form content on TikTok, but most people just mindlessly consume the short form garbage, wasting their time and destroying their attention span. Everytime I watch teenagers or kids use TikTok I am genuinely horrified. It is clear that the platform does not optimize for thoughtful content, on the contrary! I certainly wouldn't advocate for it.
To me it is a time-sink that drowns our brains in a perpetual state of climax. Every video is designed to bring you to climax, and before it is done, the next video is loaded only to do the same. It is addictive and breeds impatience.
The medium is the message. I treat YouTube shorts and reels the same way. I'm sure there is smart content, but I'd rather take the time to research a subject rather wait for it to be randomly fed to me in the most exaggerated manner.
Not OP, but the users of it I know my person seem hypermobilized by what I consider brainrot ideologies amd generally seem to have highly destabilized psychologies.
> But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.
Are you saying that TikTok was banned because the company would not generate specific content? That's not at all how the app works, so maybe I am misunderstanding what your claim here is.
Not at all, the same way the US government does not ask Facebook or other media to produce specific content. However they still send take down requests and guidelines.
TikTok being a foreign entity was under no obligation to conform to the US government, well at least not until now. With the exception to illegal content.
If you're on iPhone that might make sense but on Android there is no need, lots of ways to get access to it after you moved to Canada, if you ever want to pick up smoking.
Is this supposed to be China only or should the rest of the world also be suspicious and ban e.g. Meta services especially since they don't have any competing service that is popular in the US?
>If Chinese apps are allowed, then China has a big advantage over USA
Historically speaking the biggest threat by far to the lives and livelihood of US citizens is the US government and corporate elite. Giving them more power to control what information the population can access is much more dangerous to the average American than giving the Chinese government some data.
The app was shutdown a couple of hours ago in the US and this was the message all TikTok users saw when they opened the app.[1]
The same guy who pushed for a ban massively last year, is going to save the app despite the security concerns he and most of our government said they had. If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.
> If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing
Most likely, the rationale will be similar to Huawei and Kaspersky.
Not based on actual historical misbehaviour, but rather the amount of power you’re allowing their respective governments to have over US citizens / infrastructure.
There are very few “from first principals” thinkers in the world, especially amongst TikTok’s younger audience. Most people take their beliefs from others, in the same way a llm’s output reflects its training data. If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume, then they can influence the narrative of the country.
China has long banned US social media for likely the same reason.
I understand that people who don't work in intelligence can have a difficult time recognizing risk, and often don't really understand the war other countries don't work the way the US does with the rule of law, but these are very much not baseless allegations. These are not even historical misbehavior. These companies explicitly and intentionally support and perform intelligence actions on behalf of their countries' intelligence services. Facebook and Google absolutely do not.
Kaspersky has been very credibly linked to Russian intelligence:
I will say the one problem with it from the perspective of young people is they always get the dick.
* Young people suffer the hardest from the housing crisis
* Young people suffer the most in any kind of job market challenges
* Young people have the least say in elections
* Young people now give up the app they use that actually makes them happy and helps to forget about how shit the world has become for them. Also an app that makes some of them real money.
Basically, the youth have no real legislation in their favour while their quality of life continues to degrade. I imagine that gets old.
This is a rant from someone who supports the tiktok ban.. but I'd extend it to all social media.
The problem may not even be that China can control these narratives as much, but just that they (US as in the government/state institution) can't in the first place. Eg there had been complains about pro-palestine narratives dominating tictoc, even if there was no actual evidence this was manipulated (and I doubt it was). This is why i think that this is a case where the interests of the american people may not necessarily align with the "national" interests of wanting to ban tictoc (while the other cases are more about basic infrastructure or access to that), though i think eventually it will not matter much (if tictoc stays the grip for the US part of it by the US government is probably gonna be firmer).
This also can explain bytedance's approach of support and reassurance towards the incoming administration. I bet they care more about their company and not having to choose between two loss scenarios than about politics/international relations, just like most of big corporations in the world.
Therefore, this power to influence younger generations should be restricted to US government and US big tech Corporation. They know what is best for them.
In the long run it's better that both China and US have deep tentacles wrapped around each other. The more culture and dependencies merge and intertwine the more cooperation looks attractive over war.
The easiest real example I'm aware of is that there was a scandal around the Houston rockets and China (years ago) and you could not find their content or content related to them on TikTok. (You could for every other NBA team)
In this example: who cares? But the problem is how implicit everything is.
Imagine that a major US ally (like Israel) were attacked by a globally recognized terrorist organization. Imagine if, for some reason, a high percentage of people on TikTok ended up being opposed to the US government's support of their ally. Imagine if there were protests across college campuses. And counter protests.
Would we know whether TikTok was behind the scenes, sowing discord? This is the kind of thing - weakening our alliances - that china would love to do. If china can reduce our willingness to defend our allies (think the Philippines in the south china sea, or Taiwan which.... there's explicitly a project 2027 in China to be ready to invade Taiwan)
Do we want the Chinese government to have the ability to do this?
To me, this whole thing just comes across as craven and excessively politically motivated by the US government. If they were really concerned with apps (whether or not they're owned by the Chinese government) collecting and selling user data, they would pass adequate and enforceable privacy laws. Banning one specific app is addressing a symptom rather than a root cause, and any solution to an issue like this ought to apply to the entire field more broadly. I don't necessarily think that banning TikTok is a bad thing, but to do so in such an obviously politically motivated way belies a lack of concern about the underlying issue (i.e. the mass harvesting of user data).
> If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume, then they can influence the narrative of the country.
From Noah Smith:
> Second, the refusal to sell the app tells us that the Chinese government would rather see TikTok destroyed than see it fall into American hands. Notably, that same government put up little fuss back in 2020 when the U.S. forced a Chinese company to sell the gay dating app Grindr to an American company. Why shut down TikTok and leave untold billions of dollars on the table, instead of just selling the thing like Grindr was sold?
> One possibility is that it’s an attempt to make young Americans angry, in the hopes that they’ll demand that Trump and Congress repeal the 2024 law. But a simpler explanation is that Chinese leaders simply think that TikTok, unlike other apps, is so important that they would rather destroy it than see it escape their control.
> Why? Some supporters of the divestiture bill argue that TikTok will transfer Americans’ personal data to the Chinese government — something it has already admitted to doing in a few cases. Others are concerned with TikTok’s social harms. But the biggest concern is that by controlling the TikTok algorithm, the Chinese government might be able to propagandize America’s young people — and to silence Americans who say things it doesn’t like.
> In fact, there’s some pretty strong evidence that TikTok already does exactly this. Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute has produced a number of papers about TikTok’s manipulation of information to suit Chinese government desires. The standard methodology is to compare topics on TikTok to similar topics on Instagram and YouTube. The NCRI people find that content on the different platforms is broadly similar, except where China-related issues are concerned. […]
The argument seems a bit hysterical, it's not like everyone is forced to use TikTok, they can get hair tips, learn about Gaza, or get whatever views from TikTok, or Facebook, or Twitter, or Twitch or...
American's would have the freedom to choose what social media they want to consume, now they are forced to only have one controlled by a US billionaire.
If that is the what happened, they made the best case for shutting down US owned social networks across the world. It is not a specific case of misbehaving, but the power they give to the American government that can collude with these oligarchs such as Elon Musk.
I wonder how much ByteDance got from the incoming administration to pull that stunt. Super shady. "We voluntarily shut down our service in your country (er, I mean, we HAD TO, for real!) but don't worry, a true hero is soon arriving to save the day!"
And it's ironic because this is a perfect example of what the law is intended to prevent -- a Chinese-owned company boosting Trump in front of a hundred million Americans.
If that's not foreign influence, I don't know what is.
Bytedance didn’t get anything. They likely posted this message without Trump’s knowledge to create social pressure on him by setting up an expectation. It’s a manipulation technique, which is exactly why this app needs to go away.
It’s very telling that the TT ban was not a standalone bill, but rather just one item of a bill that included $26 billion in aid for Israel, $13b for Ukraine and $8b for Taiwan
Congress can’t even agree on the federal govt budget, but they can almost unanimously agree to support war, and banning TT
It was explicitly written in this law specifically that the president can unilaterally decide that an affected platform has done enough to no longer qualify for the ban.
My understanding is that the law doesn’t ban TikTok. The law gives the president the power to ban TikTok.
So the president can elect not to use said power.
No, he can't. Congress would have to revoke it. But it has bipartison support. So its just more of the same charade BS that he rants on about. Its all nonsense from him. It will be worse this time around bc he is not all there (even moreso than 2016). The next 4 yrs are going to be quite comical. He can't even control his bowels and he has to wear diapers to stop leaking.
It will return, and very soon. 100% sure.
They just need to turn it into something they can control through a local "broker" while maintaining some compatibility with the platform; 170 million users willing to be indoctrinated by government propaganda are hard to ignore.
Trump is the kind of guy that likes to create a crisis, so that he can be the knight in shining armor that comes to save people from it. Whether it is a constructed one, or a real one, that's what he does.
To save you a click, the message displayed on TikTok reads:
- -
"Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now.
"A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
"We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
- -
That last paragraph is 100% the language of authoritarian regimes.
"We are fortunate to have the Leader's personal attention!" — and he hasn't even taken office yet. Incredible.
> "I think we're going to have to start thinking because, you know, we did go on TikTok, and we had a great response with billions of views, billions and billions of views," Trump told the crowd at AmericaFest, an annual gathering organized by conservative group Turning Point.
>
> "They brought me a chart, and it was a record, and it was so beautiful to see, and as I looked at it, I said, 'Maybe we gotta keep this sucker around for a little while'," he said.
If only things like kids getting shot in their classrooms or people dying while insurance companies profited was as compelling as whatever was in that classified briefing
And on cue - Trump has signaled his intention to stall the ban via executive order. The wording of that message is like kryptonite to that man. It’s simply begging for him to come out and say “see only I can fix it!”
This is what it currently says for me on the homepage when I view it:
Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now
A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
In the meantime, you can still log in to download your data.
> We regret that a U.S. law banning TikTok will take effect on January 19 and force us to make our services temporarily unavailable.
> We're working to restore our service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned.
Exactly an hour later, it changed to:
> A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
> We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
Ha, is that uniparty vote supposed to be something meaningful? If the government had true concerns, they could 1) be aired to the public and 2) other senators like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul would not be speaking against the ban.
People can change their views and minds. It's only a problem when you lie and pretend you didn't. Pres Biden signed the law and could suspend it now if he wanted, but he chose not to do it as it'd be contradictory to his own signing. And of course soon-to-be President Trump will get the credit for reverting it. Nobody cares about the details beyond those invested into politik.
It's meaningful because it's one of the few things congress could actually pass. You can count on one hand the number of bills that passed this year with that kind of support that wasn't something like a budget bill.
I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars - maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
—-
Basically the same thing - I will extend (so I’m hero) but you need to sell.
Walked downstairs this morning to my 12 year old girl complaining about the Tik Tok ban and noting that she saw that message. She’s now asking me what Trump can do to save it. It’s going to be hilarious when Trump reverses the ban.
I’m not sure if this message from the team is a smart move. ByteDance’s decision seems quite strange—it actually strengthens the arguments of those supporting the ban. Critics can now point to this and say, “Look, this proves our concerns.”
While Trump has hinted at possible delay of ban, he has also made many statements that are unlikely to materialize. This is Trump for god sake - we all now what we are getting here.
In my opinion, he won’t delay the ban immediately. He’ll likely wait a few days to gauge ByteDance’s reaction. If the owners aren’t overly concerned about losing access to the U.S. market—given its strategic value beyond just financial aspects—then the ban might not be postponed.
Also, keep in mind that both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg wield significant influence over how this situation unfolds. Additionally, platforms like Truth Social play a role in the broader landscape.
Moreover, there are classified briefings, intelligence reports, and strategic simulations—such as how TikTok’s algorithm could potentially be weaponized in the event of geopolitical conflict—that we simply don’t have access to.
> Biden could have cut a deal with TikTok instead of this. That would have left the US with a least one major social media not in the pocket of Trump.
This take is extremely disingenuous.
TikTok is a espionage and propaganda vector currently controlled by China's ruling regime. The only decision at this point is whether China continues to operate their propaganda and intelligence operation with free reign within the US. The only question at this point is whether Trump is in the pocket of the CCP.
TikTok's propaganda is clearly targeting Trump. I mean, ByteDance rejected a sale and instructed TikTok to unitalerally turn the lights off and post messages on how Trump was their savior. This is extremely transparent. There is nothing Biden could do to counter this.
What makes your take extremely disingenuous is the fact that you are arguing that Biden should fold to the CCP's pressure to continue their propaganda and intelligence campaign within the US, and you're trying to frame this somehow as keeping a major social not in the pocket of Trump. As if Trump is the issue.
> classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.
Romney pretty much said it was Israel. They think that--but for tiktok--zoomers would be supporting the genocide in gaza.
My guess is that Trump will negotiate with China that tiktok sticks to the party line on Israel and then it's allowed back in. Possibly it will come with some kind of verification system for someone in the US to pre-vet narratives going forward. Fortunately China already has sophisticated systems for this pre-vetting which they are currently using on their own population.
On foreign policy and intelligence issues, there are no “party lines.” There’s just the uni party. Same people who said Iraq had WMDs. Default reaction to anything they say should be to assume the opposite.
So I have a relatively large extended family covering a wide age range and we talk pretty frequently in a shared SMS group - most of them have noted the ban with a passing level of irritation but nobody's "freaking out" like if you lost access to a platform like Facebook, Twitter, or Discord that's more oriented around communication rather than consumption.
I understand that people spend a lot of time doomscrolling on it, but even with millions of daily users the optimistic side of me really wants to believe that it won't affect anyone's mental health in any measurable way.
There won't really be a noticeable effect IMO. It was banned in India a few years ago, everyone pretty much instantly moved to reels/youtube shorts. I don't know how creators managed, but the consumption just moved to another app.
Nothing specific to TikTok either. PUBG mobile was also banned here around the same time, and people just moved to Call of Duty mobile.
Well, in India people are used to authoritarian government banning random online stuff. Or shutting the entire Internet down for days
This is the first largely used anything online the government has banned, and I'm personally still upset it even got this far. The internet was supposed to be free speech incarnate, and banning apps and websites for Americans on it, isn't something I honestly thought I'd ever see
> those people are probably concerned about their future
As they should be, because they stupidly made their lives dependent on a single platform that anyone with a brain could see was likely to run into trouble sooner rather than later.
The lesson for the is: don't put your eggs in one basket.
It’s always uncomfortable when realpolitik clashes with the values we aspire to have.
What is freedom, anyway? Surely it can’t include allowing a foreign adversary access to a knob to twist on an important demographic of society. A foreign adversary who is actively compromising the network infrastructure of that society [1] but definitely wouldn’t touch infrastructure around an app owned by a Chinese company.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. One person's portal to a better world is a state's vehicle to shaping it in the state's interests.
that's a slippery slope. The Russian government is also justifying all of its censorship with foreign interference (this line of argument works with the Russian public, just to note), take care!
I'm less certain that it's a slippery slope than it is a fine line. The government does not appear to have a problem with the speech occurring on TikTok. It is not trying to apply censorship or forcing the app to close down. It tried to force it to be sold away from its Chinese ownership. It tried to mitigate the possibility that a foreign adversary can use the app as a tool for its own interests. Had TikTok divested itself instead of shutting itself down the dancing would have continued on.
we are not at war with China. i did not vote to be at war with China. i am an adult and should be trusted by our elites to be able to read whatever i want.
the entire ethos of our country is antithetical to this notion of well-educated, affluent urbanites deciding what information diet is ‘correct’ for the dirty masses to consume.
Readit News
TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759336 - Jan 2025 (22 comments)
What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.
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.
AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.
Who knows what could be on those chips.
I would say America has as much right to be upset at China blocking American websites within its borders, as China has to be upset at the US blocking Tiktok within its borders.
Foreign Ownership Does Not Equate to a National Security Threat There is no publicly available evidence proving that TikTok has provided U.S. user data to a foreign government. TikTok has already implemented localization measures for data storage and operations (e.g., the "Texas Project"). In contrast, many U.S. tech companies (e.g., Facebook, Google) have faced scrutiny over data privacy issues but have not been restricted due to foreign ownership. Restricting TikTok solely based on "foreign ownership" lacks factual support.
Economic Impact: TikTok Is a Lifeline for Millions TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S. According to 2023 data, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. economy and supported at least 300,000 jobs. Restricting TikTok would directly threaten the livelihoods of these individuals, causing significant harm to social stability and economic vitality.
A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban Rather than imposing a blanket restriction on TikTok, it would be more effective to strengthen data privacy protections through legislation, ensuring that all social media platforms (whether foreign or domestic) adhere to the same security standards. For example, TikTok could be required to further localize data storage and undergo independent audits. This approach would safeguard national security while avoiding unnecessary harm to users and creators.
I don't understand your point. Yes, TikTok and traditional media are different. But there are similarities. And you haven't pointed out any difference between them that would make a law restricting traditional media reasonable but a law restricting TikTok unreasonable.
>A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Why capitalize every letter of the sentence? This feels like it was generated by an LLM.
I very much doubt that 5 million people earn significant money from tik tok
This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters. Geopolitic strategies are increasingly executed as grey zone warfare, and some hybrid warfare, because the costs and risks of traditional overt warfare have become unacceptably high.
> Use of the term grey-zone is widespread in national security circles, but there is no universal agreement on the definition of grey-zone, or even whether it is a useful term, with views about the term ranging from "faddish" or "vague", to "useful" or "brilliant"
It goes on to say:
> Grey zone warfare generally means a middle, unclear space that exists between direct conflict and peace in international relations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...
The ADL head (Greenblatt) noted they had a major issue with young people seeing footage from the front lines negatively impacting perception of Israel, this is in a leaked voice memo from early 2024. Ban legislation followed within a month.
(1) https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1852851603365036222
https://x.com/PatriotSt0rm17/status/1878777137479712889
https://x.com/infolibnews/status/1878706591626924522
Deleted Comment
The Chinese government invested a lot for decades in R&D around population-scale behavioral manipulation, including running a lot of experiments on their own population. It was an impressive research effort; other countries invest in this too but the Chinese commitment to mastery of it was next level. Not an issue.
These capabilities and techniques can make populations wired into it dance like predictable puppets in aggregate but they don’t work that effectively over generic undifferentiated communication channels because humans are too chaotic. It requires tight real-time feedback, control, and instrumentation of the information channels with sufficient critical mass population-wise to matter. Those kinds of tight feedback and control loops under direct control of government systems for constructive manipulation aren’t really a thing at most social media companies. You can spam propaganda but that is qualitatively inferior.
Divestiture of TikTok removes the access and control the Chinese government needs to effect outcomes with TikTok beyond typical propaganda and influence operations.
Most countries desire this capability but the technical implementation and requirement of sufficiently tight control of the channel has been a formidable barrier. China outright banned any vehicle that had the potential to allow foreign governments to do the same in their own country.
All of this has been known and discussed in national security settings for decades. The difficulty of implementation in the real world made it mostly a hypothetical risk at any non-trivial scale until TikTok.
The most insidious aspect is that sophisticated operational analytics has made it such that the manipulation may seem completely unrelated to the desired population-scale effect, it is not propaganda in a conventional sense. Done well, the individual never perceives it but the aggregate effect reliably emerges. The extent to which humans can be analytically manipulated in very indirect ways at scale is both fascinating and scary.
(Many years ago I used to work on problems related to population-scale operational behavioral analysis. China was on the cutting edge of this research even back then. None of the experimental theory is new, but apparently the tech finally caught up.)
If you control the "last mile" infrastructure, you have a pretty good idea what's going on. If you control the mobile network, you can track everyone, and flash their baseband processor if you like.
(see also: concerns about Huawei equipment in our internet infrastructure)
The documents that Snowden released confirmed that this kind of thing was going on. To be honest, I don't think that really surprised anyone in the security community.
We just don't want China to have the same power to monitor our citizens as we have ourselves.
> This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters
Looks like you're just confirming what OP said
Might as well look up the definition of "5th column"
That's what growing conservative "anti globalist" movements backed by national security elements are really about. Not ultimately immigration or racism or tax cuts (that's how you get the tubes on board), but about how the inability to keep civilians out of information conflicts has made running countries incredibly difficult.
This is one area where China absolutely has the right approach and we need to wake up about what it means in the public rather than complain that we can't scroll silly waste of time videos all the time. The US public is incredibly uneducated about this concept and why it poses a threat, so the discussion needs to be had.
I think we should be far more critical of American internet companies as well and quite a few of them should probably be banned because they are creating the same sort of problem w.r.t how we can practically organize a functioning society. That's the unfortunate thing, is a bunch of libertarians in silicon valley a while back decided to invent a business model that could cause a global war.
AOC published a video talking about how she (and some other representatives) believed that the arguments that were presented to them were just as vague, nonspecific and theoretical as these online arguments I keep reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...
“Aggressively weaponized”: These conflicts rely on information as a primary weapon because it is more cost-effective and impactful than traditional warfare.
“National security circles”: This term commonly refers to the U.S. security establishment, including its agencies and defense systems.
Pro-Russian, right-wing candidate (Calin Georgescu) with zero funding becomes leading candidate overnight. Turns out there's coordinate campaigns to push him on social media channels, like TikTok, where tens of thousands of accounts were opened a couple of weeks prior to polls opening. All pushing Calin.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2v13nz202o
i hate that nationalism is becoming another hyper-polarized topic - now we get people who are ridiculously jingoistic/anti-cosmopolitan and other people who reject fully the notion that a government’s first responsibility is to its own citizens. both are radical views that are no way to govern a well-functioning republic.
The only study I've seen said that TikTok wasn't any more biased than other social medias.
Calling it "Grey zone conflict" feels like the "Deep state" shenanigans... It's primarily marketing to achieve your goal.
We've seen the invasion of Iraq; that was all based on lies. We got ISIS as a result... "National security circles" look for evidence so it fits their narrative. Like watching FoxNews. It's a very narrowminded funnel of carefully picked pieces of evidence. They are not truth seekers that aim to provide a holistic view of the situation. No, they are scared aged men who love to control the narrative and see danger in everything in the hope to get more funding for their next projects.
Btw; banning TikTok is a good thing, but for other reasons entirely.
Social media manipulation has already been effective.
Education?
"Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM
Dead Comment
I’m sorry, but not everything on this world is Israel/Palestine.
0 - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2v13nz202o.amp
That has been happening since time immemorial.
What is actually the issue is that for the first time ever in the post-WW2 Pax Americana era, media is being weaponized by a powerful non-American state (China).
America does through Facebook, Mysterious Twitter X, Reddit, CNN, Fox News, PBS, et al. what China does through TikTok. If anything, other countries should also seriously consider banning foreign media and realize insofar as future geopolitics that Pax Americana is ending.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_i...
Dead Comment
Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).
In many European countries this still includes regulations for publishers - while social media are somehow excluded from these regulations (and that explains why society is in state that is now when lies are not confronted but amplified).
Is Reddit a great place? Eh. Is it critical to daily life in Indonesia? Of course not. But what I witnessed was censorship, full-stop.
I understand that the U.S. is not blocking TikTok at the DNS level. And that there are valid concerns over sharing user data and government influence over TikTok. But in my view, this is still censorship. Instead of allowing individuals decide whether or not to use TikTok, my government decided to ban it.
The whole argument over selling TikTok to a U.S.-based company is bullshit, imo. What kind of precedent is that? I use online services from all over the world, and in doing so decide to allow my usage to fall (to some extent) under the jurisdiction of that country.
(There are also a whole host of other service providers that might be put into the position of being censors if Tiktok were to ignore the law and continue working for sidedloaded apps).
This sounds like one of those irregular verb conjugations English is so full of: I ban; you go dark; he/she/it censors.
It's probably worth adding, though, that Libgen, TikTok, Porn and News Outlets would all be censored/banned/deliberately-excluded-from-culture-by-people-with-legitimate-power for different reasons.
I think TikTok and News Outlets would be the most closely aligned in this sense.
Dead Comment
1. Libgen domains are "seized" - only the domains got seized, the website is still operational.
2. tiktok "goes dark", yes because it was an action of tiktok to go dark with the hope that they will be operational next week. Nobody banned them and even Biden said he would not enforce it so they could have simply do nothing and wait for the next week.
3. "censor" porn or news outlets, I think thats common usage.
There is a passage in the book Life of Pi, where Pi's family is gathered and ready to leave India for Canada. And his mother does something out of the ordinary:
> The day before our departure she pointed at a cigarette wallah and earnestly asked, "Should we get a pack or two?"
> Father replied, "They have tobacco in Canada. And why do you want to buy cigarettes? We don't smoke."
> Yes, they have tobacco in Canada-but do they have Gold Flake cigarettes? Do they have Arun ice cream? Are the bicycles Heroes? Are the televisions Onidas? Are the cars Ambassadors? Are the bookshops Higginbothams'? Such, I suspect, were the questions that swirled in Mother's mind as she contemplated buying cigarettes.
Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it. Will I use it if it is reinstated? Probably not. But I downloaded it anyway the same way Mrs Gita Patel wanted to buy cigarettes. It wasn’t about need or use. It was about the loss.
I would stand behind a tiktok ban if it was for the right reasons. But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.
> Chinese mobile apps were stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data.
> The compilation of such data, and its mining and profiling by elements hostile to India is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures
[0] https://apnews.com/article/bd02ecd62ff9da6b1301868f0308e297
This, to me, is a weird stance. On what grounds did you advocate against it?
I just had to create a new account tonight after the ban[0] to keep using it. When you first start TikTok you might be presented with a wave of seemingly crap, bizarre or boring videos, but after several minutes of liking and watching the good stuff the algorithm very quickly starts serving you some excellent content.
There is some really, really great, really smart content on TikTok. I have always advocated for TikTok on those grounds.
[0] my accounts are all on USA servers and you can't log into them even through a VPN
It is incredibly addictive inducing drug like state:
> You’ll just be in this pleasurable dopamine state, carried away. It’s almost hypnotic, you’ll keep watching and watching. - Dr. Julie Albright
> You keep scrolling, she says, because sometimes you see something you like, and sometimes you don’t. And that differentiation — very similar to a slot machine in Vegas — is key.
I detest slot machines, so many lives wasted away, and I feel like we already spend too much time on computers to the detriment of both ourselves and society, let alone giving the CCP a hand to manipulate people on top of everything else
> my accounts are all on USA servers
Keep telling yourself that ;)
The medium is the message. I treat YouTube shorts and reels the same way. I'm sure there is smart content, but I'd rather take the time to research a subject rather wait for it to be randomly fed to me in the most exaggerated manner.
It's owned by the Chinese government and I don't trust the Chinese government.
Are you saying that TikTok was banned because the company would not generate specific content? That's not at all how the app works, so maybe I am misunderstanding what your claim here is.
TikTok being a foreign entity was under no obligation to conform to the US government, well at least not until now. With the exception to illegal content.
Do you understand what kind of information can be derived from 150 million smart phones?
Would you not expect the rules to be different?
If it's only about reciprocity and global hegemony, well then...
Historically speaking the biggest threat by far to the lives and livelihood of US citizens is the US government and corporate elite. Giving them more power to control what information the population can access is much more dangerous to the average American than giving the Chinese government some data.
The same guy who pushed for a ban massively last year, is going to save the app despite the security concerns he and most of our government said they had. If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.
[1] https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.c...
Most likely, the rationale will be similar to Huawei and Kaspersky.
Not based on actual historical misbehaviour, but rather the amount of power you’re allowing their respective governments to have over US citizens / infrastructure.
There are very few “from first principals” thinkers in the world, especially amongst TikTok’s younger audience. Most people take their beliefs from others, in the same way a llm’s output reflects its training data. If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume, then they can influence the narrative of the country.
China has long banned US social media for likely the same reason.
Kaspersky has been very credibly linked to Russian intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_and_the_Russian_gove...
And Huawei has been very credibly linked to Chinese intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei
There is often an attempt to equate these behaviors with compliance with court-order subpoenas, but they are not the same.
* Young people suffer the hardest from the housing crisis
* Young people suffer the most in any kind of job market challenges
* Young people have the least say in elections
* Young people now give up the app they use that actually makes them happy and helps to forget about how shit the world has become for them. Also an app that makes some of them real money.
Basically, the youth have no real legislation in their favour while their quality of life continues to degrade. I imagine that gets old.
This is a rant from someone who supports the tiktok ban.. but I'd extend it to all social media.
This also can explain bytedance's approach of support and reassurance towards the incoming administration. I bet they care more about their company and not having to choose between two loss scenarios than about politics/international relations, just like most of big corporations in the world.
In this example: who cares? But the problem is how implicit everything is.
Imagine that a major US ally (like Israel) were attacked by a globally recognized terrorist organization. Imagine if, for some reason, a high percentage of people on TikTok ended up being opposed to the US government's support of their ally. Imagine if there were protests across college campuses. And counter protests.
Would we know whether TikTok was behind the scenes, sowing discord? This is the kind of thing - weakening our alliances - that china would love to do. If china can reduce our willingness to defend our allies (think the Philippines in the south china sea, or Taiwan which.... there's explicitly a project 2027 in China to be ready to invade Taiwan)
Do we want the Chinese government to have the ability to do this?
Sure, but most other countries haven't. Perhaps they should learn from these developments and start considering their options.
Deleted Comment
From Noah Smith:
> Second, the refusal to sell the app tells us that the Chinese government would rather see TikTok destroyed than see it fall into American hands. Notably, that same government put up little fuss back in 2020 when the U.S. forced a Chinese company to sell the gay dating app Grindr to an American company. Why shut down TikTok and leave untold billions of dollars on the table, instead of just selling the thing like Grindr was sold?
> One possibility is that it’s an attempt to make young Americans angry, in the hopes that they’ll demand that Trump and Congress repeal the 2024 law. But a simpler explanation is that Chinese leaders simply think that TikTok, unlike other apps, is so important that they would rather destroy it than see it escape their control.
> Why? Some supporters of the divestiture bill argue that TikTok will transfer Americans’ personal data to the Chinese government — something it has already admitted to doing in a few cases. Others are concerned with TikTok’s social harms. But the biggest concern is that by controlling the TikTok algorithm, the Chinese government might be able to propagandize America’s young people — and to silence Americans who say things it doesn’t like.
> In fact, there’s some pretty strong evidence that TikTok already does exactly this. Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute has produced a number of papers about TikTok’s manipulation of information to suit Chinese government desires. The standard methodology is to compare topics on TikTok to similar topics on Instagram and YouTube. The NCRI people find that content on the different platforms is broadly similar, except where China-related issues are concerned. […]
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning
American's would have the freedom to choose what social media they want to consume, now they are forced to only have one controlled by a US billionaire.
Yass has paid in tens of millions of dollars, he's going to call that in to get an unban.
I really don't know which way to bet on this though. The Trump presidency is going to be consistently unpredictable.
If that's not foreign influence, I don't know what is.
This is the corporate version of "he quit before they could fire him".
Why do you assume conspiracy instead of unilateral political maneuvering?
Congress can’t even agree on the federal govt budget, but they can almost unanimously agree to support war, and banning TT
No real anything presented to the American public, just handwaving and finger pointing
It just barely needs to make sense and it becomes the center of the conversation, derailing any meaningful or real discussion
Very effective propaganda
A media outlet not easy to censor is unacceptable to the Israeli lobby, and therefore unacceptable to our politicians.
Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?
No, but they can direct the federal government to deprioritize enforcement.
But... But that would apply to Meta and Twitter as well Ö
Trump is the kind of guy that likes to create a crisis, so that he can be the knight in shining armor that comes to save people from it. Whether it is a constructed one, or a real one, that's what he does.
Deleted Comment
- -
"Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now.
"A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
"We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
- -
That last paragraph is 100% the language of authoritarian regimes.
"We are fortunate to have the Leader's personal attention!" — and he hasn't even taken office yet. Incredible.
It sounds like an authoritarian regime because it is one.
Deleted Comment
It couldn't be because Jeffrey Yass has spent some dozens up to hundreds of millions US$ in GOP donations, could it? [1]
It really feels like the USA is circling the drain faster and faster these days...
[0] https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/03/18/billion...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-wo...
> "I think we're going to have to start thinking because, you know, we did go on TikTok, and we had a great response with billions of views, billions and billions of views," Trump told the crowd at AmericaFest, an annual gathering organized by conservative group Turning Point. > > "They brought me a chart, and it was a record, and it was so beautiful to see, and as I looked at it, I said, 'Maybe we gotta keep this sucker around for a little while'," he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/19/technology/trump-tiktok-b...
First, there was a generic message:
> We regret that a U.S. law banning TikTok will take effect on January 19 and force us to make our services temporarily unavailable.
> We're working to restore our service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned.
Exactly an hour later, it changed to:
> A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
> We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
Those with security concerns about TikTok will be frustrated, because the app will continue to operate.
Those with free speech concerns about the ban are also frustrated, because the law to ban TikTok was upheld (but might be ignored).
To top it all off, we will see an especially blatant disregard for law enforcement from the executive branch.
This seems to be the likely path, everyone loses and our system of government looks like a joke.
Vs
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-tiktok...
Mitch Hedberg:
My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?
Ha, is that uniparty vote supposed to be something meaningful? If the government had true concerns, they could 1) be aired to the public and 2) other senators like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul would not be speaking against the ban.
People can change their views and minds. It's only a problem when you lie and pretend you didn't. Pres Biden signed the law and could suspend it now if he wanted, but he chose not to do it as it'd be contradictory to his own signing. And of course soon-to-be President Trump will get the credit for reverting it. Nobody cares about the details beyond those invested into politik.
I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars - maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
—-
Basically the same thing - I will extend (so I’m hero) but you need to sell.
Deleted Comment
While Trump has hinted at possible delay of ban, he has also made many statements that are unlikely to materialize. This is Trump for god sake - we all now what we are getting here.
In my opinion, he won’t delay the ban immediately. He’ll likely wait a few days to gauge ByteDance’s reaction. If the owners aren’t overly concerned about losing access to the U.S. market—given its strategic value beyond just financial aspects—then the ban might not be postponed.
Also, keep in mind that both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg wield significant influence over how this situation unfolds. Additionally, platforms like Truth Social play a role in the broader landscape.
Moreover, there are classified briefings, intelligence reports, and strategic simulations—such as how TikTok’s algorithm could potentially be weaponized in the event of geopolitical conflict—that we simply don’t have access to.
The question is if people are still going to use tiktok when Trump bites the CCP bait.
I'm not a fan of the ban, mind you, but it's not like they were ordered to leave the country.
This take is extremely disingenuous.
TikTok is a espionage and propaganda vector currently controlled by China's ruling regime. The only decision at this point is whether China continues to operate their propaganda and intelligence operation with free reign within the US. The only question at this point is whether Trump is in the pocket of the CCP.
TikTok's propaganda is clearly targeting Trump. I mean, ByteDance rejected a sale and instructed TikTok to unitalerally turn the lights off and post messages on how Trump was their savior. This is extremely transparent. There is nothing Biden could do to counter this.
What makes your take extremely disingenuous is the fact that you are arguing that Biden should fold to the CCP's pressure to continue their propaganda and intelligence campaign within the US, and you're trying to frame this somehow as keeping a major social not in the pocket of Trump. As if Trump is the issue.
Deleted Comment
Instead he signed it into law without question.
Dead Comment
Romney pretty much said it was Israel. They think that--but for tiktok--zoomers would be supporting the genocide in gaza.
My guess is that Trump will negotiate with China that tiktok sticks to the party line on Israel and then it's allowed back in. Possibly it will come with some kind of verification system for someone in the US to pre-vet narratives going forward. Fortunately China already has sophisticated systems for this pre-vetting which they are currently using on their own population.
I understand that people spend a lot of time doomscrolling on it, but even with millions of daily users the optimistic side of me really wants to believe that it won't affect anyone's mental health in any measurable way.
Nothing specific to TikTok either. PUBG mobile was also banned here around the same time, and people just moved to Call of Duty mobile.
This is the first largely used anything online the government has banned, and I'm personally still upset it even got this far. The internet was supposed to be free speech incarnate, and banning apps and websites for Americans on it, isn't something I honestly thought I'd ever see
As they should be, because they stupidly made their lives dependent on a single platform that anyone with a brain could see was likely to run into trouble sooner rather than later.
The lesson for the is: don't put your eggs in one basket.
A new year's resolution to go cold turkey and a chance to change a cure their own addictions.
It is not the end of the world. Just the end of someone's supply of a brand of digital drug.
And tell "go fuck yourself" to FB, Instagram, X ... etc.
What is freedom, anyway? Surely it can’t include allowing a foreign adversary access to a knob to twist on an important demographic of society. A foreign adversary who is actively compromising the network infrastructure of that society [1] but definitely wouldn’t touch infrastructure around an app owned by a Chinese company.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. One person's portal to a better world is a state's vehicle to shaping it in the state's interests.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-hacking-espio...
To a degree... I'd say western sanctions targeting the population as a whole were at least as effective in supporting the autocracy.
the entire ethos of our country is antithetical to this notion of well-educated, affluent urbanites deciding what information diet is ‘correct’ for the dirty masses to consume.
It's a question of freedom for whom and freedom from what.