Maybe someone will scroll all the way down to this comment. Probably not.<p>For half a decade, I have lived outside of the US, and I've watched as it has fallen to shit in slow motion. I make a decent chunk of income in USD and this terrifies me... but this. This move saddens me.<p>There are only so many hours that congress has to make real decisions ... and this, this is what they spent their time on? Talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm when they're being influenced every day by how they might get shot up in math class? Come on (wo)man. This shit is fucking stupid.<p>It's just sad to me, sad to watch the country I grew up in, the one I went to war for ... do this level of stupid shit.<p>That's my 2 bucks, spend it how you want it.
Did anyone notice that the bill doesn't even mention Tiktok??? If it's a "bill to ban TikTok" why doesn't it name the target?<p>It's a red herring.<p>This is the Patriot Act for the Internet. Ironically they're copying the CCP playbook and want the same level of sweeping control with the implementation of a Great Firewall. It's extremely broad and includes everything connected to the internet that has >1M users in a year period.<p>Edit: If you don't want to read it, Louis Rossmann does a good flyover here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8</a>
The media coverage of this (and the title of this submission, which I argue should be changed to the actual title of the bill) are really confusing everyone - both in here and elsewhere.<p>There is a Senate bill[1] called "S.85 - No TikTok on United States Devices Act", which is very short and seems to only do one thing, and that's ban TikTok. This bill is in committee.<p>There is another Senate bill[2], called "S.686 - RESTRICT Act", which is the one linked in this submission and is the one everyone is - imo rightly - quite concerned about, because a bunch of stuff seemingly unrelated to TikTok is getting the Department of Homeland Security treatment. TikTok <i>isn't even mentioned in the text of the act</i>. This bill is also in committee.<p>I'm honestly left wondering if the RESTRICT Act is being intentionally amplified as "The Bill to Ban TikTok", because of how shitty it is, to give people the means to say "no we shouldn't pass this if the cost of banning TikTok is Patriot Act Part Deux", when in reality we shouldn't pass this bill anyway because it sucks.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/85/text" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/85/...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...</a>
If the concern is privacy and security, which apply to all social media platforms, then why not pass actual privacy and security laws that would apply equally to all social media platforms, regardless of who currently owns it or may own it in the future?
These things are pretty dense and generally difficult to read but here are a few nuggets/hot takes.<p>Could potentially apply to VPNs - Sec 2-3-(B) - <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idcb2967cb26484c11b01a75fdf9179e61" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...</a><p>General leeway for The Secretary of Commerce to classify things as they see fit. Chevron Deference, the idea that courts defer to executive branch agency interpretations of the law, might go away so this hedges against that - Sec 3-(a)-1-2 - <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idbedb14f7e29f4a93873ee05f694e82db" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...</a><p>Judicial Review in Section 12. I think this is the section most resembling what we think of with respect to The Patriot Act. Basically feels like it will be very hard to challenge decisions made under this law. I don't read these things often tho so perhaps I am way off base. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idd44af48486a14c9492925631d0ca100f" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...</a>
What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago.<p>China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companies can provide such a service to US customers? Is that not protectionism?<p>If we're afraid that China will use TikTok to push their propaganda in the US, we should be appropriately concerned that banning a platform to stop targeted speech is in conflict with our own norms around free speech. But instead insisting that TikTok can only operate in the US if FB/Snap/Twitter can operate in China on equal terms seems like it would be more in line with our rhetoric around wanting a rules-based international order, and freedom of both trade and speech under most circumstances.<p>If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China, their fear of our propaganda would be much worse than our fear of theirs.
I feel like they could have done this by creating a bill saying that US social media companies must be given the same access and freedoms to the Chinese market as TikTok has to ours. It would put the onus back on the CCP, they would never allow it and they would get TikTok banned in the US without being the ones to directly ban it.
I am sure someone smarter than I can tell me why this is not a viable strategy.
>Read twice and referred to the Committee on<p>I'm so cynical, I bet even that is a lie.<p>Diving in, the list of "foreign adversaries" is amusing. China and Russia have to be on there. Iran and North Korea I guess. Cuba and specifically a Maduro led Venezuela are a stretch.<p>What this bill actually seems to do is allow the Secretary of Commerce to review any communication technology, including both apps and hardware, used by a million Americans, and then suggest the president punish it if it poses an "unacceptable risk" of stealing IP, damaging infrastructure, interfering with elections, extorts a person in power, or just "otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons."<p>Then it discusses what penalties the President can enact, which are banning the thing, confiscating their assets, and confiscating their collected data (and code? not 100% on this.)<p>Next, how to designate a communication device needing review or foreign adversary, basically someone high up says so. Then how to remove a foreign adversary, which seems much more difficult though it may just have more possible methods.<p>The rest seems to deal with the minutia of enforcement. I also can't be bothered to read this once, let alone twice, but it also means I'm not quite sure what investigative powers the Secretary of Commerce has without getting a warrant.<p>So it's called a bill to ban TikTok, but it seems to give the government a fairly clear path to banning any foreign communication technology widely used. The adversary part doesn't even seem necessary, the only time the foreign adversary comes up is if they are undermining the democratic process. Which means Russia can't interfere in elections, Israel and Saudi Arabia can.
What happens when one or both of these happen:<p>1. Apple adds easy support for non-Apple app stores and side-loading to iOS to comply with the recent EU regulations that require opening things up in 2024, and then people can download TikTok from outside the US and install it?<p>2. TikTok users switch to using the TikTok website instead of the app?<p>It looks like the main thing the app gives you that the website can't is a convenient way to film short video and edit it and add music all on your phone and then post that. Surely someone could write a social network agnostic app just for filming, editing, and adding music that can upload that short video to any of your social media accounts (TikTok, YouTube shorts, and whatever other ones allow video). The destinations could be entirely user configurable and support any social network that provides a halfway decent upload API.<p>What's the US going to do? Try to make a US equivalent of China's Great Firewall? I don't think that would work here, because our free speech laws make it too easy to circulate circumvention information.<p>If I was a company that does mobile apps I'd be seriously looking right now into making that general short video maker/uploader app. If the US does successfully cut off TikTok all those users aren't going to just stop wanting to post and read the kind of things they are now doing there. They are going to try to move to other platforms. Done right, maybe my app would be something they use as part of that.
Putting aside questions of whether TikTok deserves this or not, I really worry this is the beginning of the end of general purpose computing. Given how locked down our machines are today, whether on account of walled gardens or increased security, we're almost at the point where it may actually become possible to "ban software" with a few policy decisions, which backers of this bill seem to intend. ("We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren’t playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they’re already ubiquitous.")<p>Wrote some brief thoughts about it here: <a href="https://concernedsoftwareuser.github.io/software-freedom/" rel="nofollow">https://concernedsoftwareuser.github.io/software-freedom/</a>
<p><pre><code> (10) ICTS COVERED HOLDING ENTITY.—The term “ICTS covered holding entity” means any entity that—
(A) owns, controls, or manages information and communications technology products or services; and
(B) (i) has not less than 1,000,000 United States-based annual active users at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President; or
(ii) for which more than 1,000,000 units have been sold to persons in the United States before the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President.
(11) INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.—The term “information and communications technology products or services” means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.
</code></pre>
this seems pretty broad, not just TikTok, but WeChat, Little Red Book, Yandex and any cellphone made by Chinese companies has 1M+ unit sold may all be subject to same restrictions
So we can just calling time-of-death on the United States' social tech dominance now, right?<p>Domestic tech companies shamelessly sold access to American users for manipulation by "foreign adversaries" for years, made billions, suffered no lasting consequences. Then Chinese Vine walks in, smokes everybody else in ~24 months, the mad South African buys and destroys Twitter, and Mark toddles off the cliff of irrelevance with a social network in each pocket and an Oculus strapped to his face.<p>I guess it was fun while it lasted.
This bill is like a joke. It's like the lawyers who wrote this intentionally wrote it to be so Machiavellian, horrible, and 1984-esque, so that this bill would not pass.<p>This bill literally references parts of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Controlled Substances Act. It's beyond absurd. A good video on it: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8</a>
While I don't personally mind banning Tik Toc since I think that it is a drain on our culture and is likely addictive, I do have serious concerns:<p>Why nothing about US media companies pushing advertising based on data that really should be protected by privacy laws?<p>Why nothing about the material released from Twitter by Matt Taibi, et. al.? Very concerning stuff for a country talking the talk about democracy.<p>Why not enforce limits on what kids can watch and for how long, as China does? While I am all for free speech and liberty for adults, I think it is necessary for parents to put some guardrails on their kids.<p>There is a lot more at stake here: the USA (my country) is struggling to maintain the dollar hegemony, has some severe looming economic problems, and has the same general problems shared by all countries. The USA has been very successful by carrying a big stick and hitting other countries with it. But, what was once a successful strategy is, I think, now a very poor strategy. An Empire like ours should sometimes orchestrate a graceful exit, on terms best for our country. Now when I say best for our country, I mean best for people, and not what is best for Wall Street, Our Military Industrial Complex, etc.
I don't feel any sympathy for Tiktok considering they block and remove content that goes against the CCP's narratives. So yeah, it's fair game when they do shit like that.
You know they wouldn't be doing this unless the point was to expand the government's ability to harm its citizens. Which sweeping and terrifying powers does this one introduce?
I heard on a podcast yesterday a suggestion that the reason the intelligence community doesn't like TikTok is that, unlike with Twitter, Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc, they can't just hand a warrant over to ByteDance get the data they want. If there's one thing the intelligence community hates, it's not getting the data they want.<p>Back in the previous administration, I figured this was all a temper-tantrum being thrown by an executive who got embarrassed when outsmarted by a bunch of kids. It may have started like that, but somehow in D.C. everyone's been convinced of the danger a foreign-owned social-media network poses. I'm still not sure I get it...
Curious how many here have actually read this bill?<p>If you’ve read it and you still support it (as a US citizen) I’m going to be so heartbroken by today’s tech community.<p>This is authoritarianism in the name of protecting our children.<p>I understand, TikTok is projected to overtake Alphabet’s and Meta’s video ad revenue [0] and it won’t surprise me if they even lobbied for it.
I just see it as a shortsighted move by these companies not to strongly come against this bill.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.fiercevideo.com/advertising/2027-tiktok-video-ad-revenue-will-surpass-meta-and-youtube-combined-omdia" rel="nofollow">https://www.fiercevideo.com/advertising/2027-tiktok-video-ad...</a>
Aside from the politics, I can't say I disagree starting with TikTok, but what about all the countless other Chinese applications they otherwise still allow that do even worse things unknown yet? Much as the other recent incident with Pinduoduo randomly adding spyware to their feature set. Every gadget with wifi, every game/app on our phones from random unknown International sources are a potential weapon of unknown potential payloads with a remote update.<p>As a Network/Security engineer, I personally trust American companies as little or less than anything Chinese, but I know nothing good comes from anything connecting to or from there for 99% of everything most of my non-international customers of mine or I do. They simply do not play by ours or any rules but their own. Given my druthers or by request with a capable firewall with geolocation, I gladly block anything to/from China and most anything outside the the US, particularly SLED/FED or regionally local to US only businesses. Not that I endorse isolationism, but as a practical engineer, it would likely save our incumbent non-security-savvy sheeple (or simply lazy businesses) from more blatant direct attacks and siphoning of data at least from the less tricky foreign villains without their own domestic botnets.<p>If later I actually <i>do</i> need to send something to/from blocked geolocations, there will be an exception policy for it that shall be documented.
So, they're clearly trying to describe what they're doing in general terms. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that's partly a constitutional matter -- just going after TikTok by name based on a knowledge of _past_ access to American data by staff in China would sound like an ex post facto law. So they have to frame it as being about a class of services with relationships to a group of foreign adversaries. But then are there other companies that might fall afoul of this? Yandex?
@dang - please change the misleading title of this article from "Senate Bill to Ban Tik Tok" to "Senate Bill to Criminalize VPNs and Enhanced Governmental Wiretaps"
It's frustrating the discussion is not around data privacy in the US and potentially laws around privacy. If the issue with TikTok is primarily privacy could we have laws that strengthen privacy laws for companies within the US? This way a company can update its system to mitigate issues around privacy rather than a ban. This could impact US companies too, but that does not seem like a bad thing if they are forced to have user privacy in mind.
The operatives in China's social manipulation groups are laughing while reading this thread because you all are doing their work for free.<p>I don't think you guys understand here how important a bill like this is, and how much of a threat China is to us. This bill could be modified to restrict its usage more, and that would be good, but at the end of the day we must take action against the fact that China has such a massive social and cultural entry point into our culture, because China has spent the last 10 decades ensuring that they are protected from any social exchange from us to them.<p>They will use that tool against us. It is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and it's probably already happening.<p>Do not hand our people's minds to a country that would destroy us. Pay attention to what Russia was able to do with nothing but a couple of troll farms. China won't just have that, they'll have the entire platform and the algorithm which determines everything you see every day.<p>This cannot be allowed to continue.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if Congress could identify exactly what is scary about Chinese-connected social media and legislate against it in such a way that it would prevent every other scary monster from doing exactly what they wish to deny China?<p>It seems silly to legislate "thou shalt not do really scare thing #1 if name == TikTok" or "thou shalt not allow any third party to have really scare access if name == China". Just leave out the if clauses.<p>Don't target China or Russia or Iran or North Korea. Don't exempt Virginia or Maryland or any three letter acronym. If it is dangerous for the Chinese government to do it, it is dangerous for the U.S. government to do it and for the sales department of Amazon to do it.
> To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.<p>> The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions.<p>> includes, unless removed by the Secretary pursuant to section 6—<p>(i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region;<p>(ii) the Republic of Cuba;<p>(iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran;<p>(iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
Interesting to see what the Government will focus their time on. Obama outrightly said recently that it's clear that a significant portion of the US (and outside of - namely Australia and the UK) is essentially mind-controlled by Murdoch Press through fear mongering and extreme sensationalism - whether that is Fox in the US, Sky in the UK, and a variety of news papers & channels in Australia.<p>At no point has anyone actually done anything about this, even though it significantly affects peoples views in a negative way through false truths, voting etc.<p>What about kids with social media and how bad it is for them? Evident through the fact that most people who work at social media companies ban or severely limit their kids from having phones and/or social media. Nope, let it slide.<p>But the China war with Tiktok? Of course this gets focus. How about they care about the country they actually live in by looking after the people that live in it rather than only focusing on external country threats.<p>It's sad living outside of the US and watching it fall apart by their own doing. If they cared, they'd focus on their employment rate, homelessness, free quality healthcare, gun control (yes), clean streets, and better education. If they can't solve it with their Military, they don't care.
Do I support TikTok? No, not in the least bit. Their privacy controls are horrendous and, at this stage, user info and content is undoubtedly siphoned and delivered straight to the CCP. Where it goes beyond that is undoubtedly in some Tom Clancy novel, of which likely pales in comparison to some even more grim reality.<p>Was TikTok a net good to American society? Depends on who you ask, but if anything I think most people would agree that it only exaggerated the decline of the average attention span. This moves with the larger movement to commodify clicks, quick ads and lowers the threshold towards late stage capitalism. In short, this speeds cultural decline ("I said what I said").<p>Would I support an American TikTok? No, see above.<p>Should TikTok be banned by the US congress? When is the last time you ever saw a ban of something that didn't include any overt pocket lining or omnibus-style overreach? Read the bill, the language is broad and sweeping; certainly kin to the CFAA and COPPA.<p>So what then? Well we're certainly at an impasse here, right? We can't rely on tech businesses to turn their shoulders to cold hard cash. We can't rely on our elected officials to "Do the right thing" without lining their pockets and sharpening their knives. Truly a conundrum with no good solution.
politics aside and taking into consideration that all of our governments suck in their own special ways...it pains me greatly that China is considered an adversary with the US..and Russia too..what good could come to the world if the three had a healthy relationship and pooled our greatest minds and resources toward the betterment of mankind.
Yet congress won't do a fucking thing to keep guns away from child killers. Childhood education is one remaining basic social safety net and is more and more at risk with every school massacre.<p>The mental health impact of kids, parents, and teachers having to worry about STAYING THE FUCK ALIVE IN SCHOOL EVERYDAY cannot be understated.
I find a certain sense of irony in the Chinese propagandists touting arguments such as 'this is authoritarian", "this is anti-competitive", "this is because TikTok won't let the US spy on its citizens" and so forth when ALL OF THESE THINGS are done by the CCP and worse.<p>The reason for banning it is simple: it can be used as a first-strike weapon to influence an entire generation (or two) of Americans in a conflict with China that is almost certain to happen. Keeping it under Chinese control is a bad idea.<p>China has the option to sell it to an American company, take the money and build more guns to shoot at us. Honestly, it's a win-win.
Can anyone that knows a thing or two about law comment on section 12 & 13?<p>Seems like there's... a LOT of calve-outs for due process / checks-and-balances? or is that fairly normal and i'm mis-interpreting in my ignorance?
Can someone explain why a <i>bill</i> is needed to ban TikTok?<p>Can’t the administration or a governmental agency (such as but not limited to FTC, FCC etc.) ban it?<p>I think that’s how it works in many other countries.
I'm fine if TikTok gets banned, but I feel like Facebook and all the other social media incumbents owe Americans a bunch of money for their biggest competition being banned.
Can’t say I like this at all.<p>Banning TikTok based on alleged "Chinese influence" sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, jeopardizing freedom of expression and access to global platforms. Instead, focus on enforcing data privacy regulations, strengthening cybersecurity, and promoting transparency to protect user interests without infringing on individual rights.<p>Open dialogue and collaboration are more productive than outright bans.
1) I understand that the CCP bans sites and apps. Let's not sink to their level. (Instead, let's build more and more technologies to enable their people to get around said bans).<p>2) This is embarrassing. You don't like TikTok? Man up and compete. Don't ban it.<p>3) The complexity in this bills makes it reak of corruption. There will be winners and losers in this bill. The losers we can bet are 99% of the population.
I am no tiktok fan, but this may spawn a new generation of crackers and rebels. At least maybe infuse new blood into the ranks of people who really understand how technology works. Most users don't know how to bypass a ban like this, but when they're sufficiently angry and motivated... maybe thats temporary.
To me it's pretty simple: Social media companies are media companies (it's right there in the name!) and everyone everywhere has always been wary of foreign ownership of their prominent media, and have regulated it accordingly. The only weird thing here is that it has taken this long.
From my quick reading of this bill doesn't it only possibly apply if a foreign entity owns or controls some impactful US tech? The gate of the owner being a foreign entity seems like a strong enough protection for US citizens from this bill.
The game plan is to twist TikToks arm to the point where they sell to a US company. This bill might pass but let's hope it reaches it's objective before it does, in which case support for the bill may shift away.
If I was a game developer, I would definitely be concerned. The average user spends 92 minutes a day on TikTok! <i>Average</i><p>That's gotta be taking a huge chunk of time away from playing Xbox/PlayStation/PC games.
This is just grist for the '24 election mill. Advance BS legislation that might just get to the desk of the president. He vetoes it and then the outrage machine can claim that he's weak on China.
ChatGPT has this to say about the bill:<p>This bill primarily aims to safeguard national security by regulating and mitigating risks associated with foreign investments in U.S. information and communications technology companies. It outlines the processes and authority of the Secretary of Commerce and the President to identify, review, and take necessary actions against transactions that pose a threat to national security. The major and minor intentions of this bill can be summarized as follows:<p>Major intentions:<p><pre><code> Define "covered transactions" and "interests" that warrant scrutiny for national security purposes.
Establish a process for the Secretary of Commerce to review covered transactions and interests.
Allow the President to take action against transactions that pose a threat to national security.
Outline the penalties for violating the regulations set forth in this Act.
Provide a framework for judicial review of actions taken under this Act.
</code></pre>
Minor intentions:<p><pre><code> Establish the protection of sensitive information during the review process and any subsequent legal proceedings.
Clarify the relationship between this Act and other existing laws and authorities, such as the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Specify the transition process for implementing this Act, including the continuation of actions taken under Executive Order 13873 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
</code></pre>
Possible hidden motives or unclear side effects on user freedoms:<p><pre><code> The broad scope of the bill's language may allow for an expansive interpretation of "national security risks," which could lead to a greater number of transactions being scrutinized and potentially restricted.
The bill might deter foreign investment in the U.S. information and communications technology sector, which could impact innovation, competition, and economic growth.
The exclusion of certain administrative and judicial review processes might limit transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Act.
The protection of sensitive information and the limitations on access to classified and unclassified information in legal proceedings may hinder the ability of affected parties to challenge actions taken under this Act effectively.
</code></pre>
Overall, the bill intends to protect national security by regulating foreign investments in information and communications technology. However, its broad language and limitations on transparency and access to information could potentially impact user freedoms and the technology sector's growth.
This somehow reminds me when China banned Google.<p>"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor a legal/constitutional expert.<p>TLDR: The bill doesn't ban TikTok, it gives the executive branch the power to ban companies like Tiktok. IMO this is an entirely reasonable measure.<p>As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I am generally opposed to the trend of the executive branch gaining arbitrary legislative authority but this bill appears entirely reasonable to me despite some concerns of vagueness.<p>It gives the Secretary of commerce the responsibility of consulting with agencies to determine if software companies from "foreign adversaries" pose a national security threat. If the secretary seems it does then it gives the president the authority to ban the company.
The reality to me is that they want to suppress the Gen Z vote (who predominantly vote democratic) by banning "their" platform. They guise it under a "China vs USA" intelligence war (who makes all the phones and computers we use? Riiiight). It's simply to dumb down the next generation to suppress the vote so that sitting house members can continue to be sitting house members. Prove me wrong.<p>There's a bunch of 18-28 year olds who are going to be super pissed off.
This is a frustrating issue because there's so much bad information and poor arguments that has caught on. Top of this list is that Meta is behind it. Meta doesn't have this kind of pull. Meta also doesn't want the Commerce Secretary to be able to ban platforms because that could be weaponized against all of Meta's properties in the future.<p>If you want to point the finger at anyone, Google might be a better bet. Google has been very good at keeping out of the public eye, like successfully arguing "it's the algorithm" about search results to gloss over the human element in that.<p>But there are several aspects to this that have varying levels of validity:<p>1. China doesn't provide reciprocal access to their market to US companies like FB, IG and Youtube. To me, this alone is justification to ban Chinese companies. You need go no further than this;<p>2. Data protection is a real issue. Having data within US jurisdiction is a valid concern but as many have pointed out, this would better be served by a Federal data protection law, which will never happen. Tiktok has been singled out here;<p>3. As much as the US government can gain access to data on FB, IG, etc, there is still a rule of law. Even FISA courts have a process. There is not even a pretense of separation between Chinese companies and the Chinese state;<p>4. Influence by any company through the algorithm is a valid concern. This is more of a concern with a foreign adversary but is still an issue with US companies. We've seen how quickly misinformation can spread (and affect elections) since at least 2016;<p>5. Some point out you can just get this data from data brokers. Data brokers sell audiences. In some cases you can tie that back to an individual but the platform has way more data than any broker would. I can't go to a broker and get WSJ journalist DMs. The platform owner obviously can;<p>6. The risk of a foreign government targeting individuals with 0-days and the like is a real one. We've seen Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian governments target journalists. It's a valid concern.<p>But instead of a nuanced conversation we get reactionary "China = bad" antics from some of the dumbest people (in Congress) I've ever witnessed.
co-sponsors of the bill:<p>(just in case you were curious)<p><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/cosponsors?s=1&r=15" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...</a>
ouch, the youth not going to like that..<p>Also a terrible message for foreign companies investing in the US, you can get banned if you don't give up ownership/control of your own company if you become too big..
I've never used TikTok, and I very strongly disagree with banning it. They should ban whatever activities they have a problem with, but that won't happen because then US companies would be subject to the same rules, and the US government would lose some access.
Considering that China bans all US social networks or search engines over which it does not have full censorship control, I'm totally okay with the US responding by banning TikTok.
Congress is full of idiots, I agree, but I also agree that this app has to go. Byte Dance is far too sketch. Something will replace it overnight, so no worries.<p>And at least they finally did something.
In select countries (China, Turkey, India, many more) apps regularly get banned. In the west we frown upon this practice based on the principle of freedom of speech and free markets and competition.<p>The second-order effect of this is interesting to ponder about as it creates an asymmetrical situation. Those countries get the "good" parts of social media (as in, good for their government) whilst we get the bad parts of every app ever.<p>My main point is that these bad parts should not be underestimated. Misinformation campaigns, election interference, calls for violence, addiction, mental health issues, radicalization, polarization, dysfunction, the normalization of degenerate behavior, a cultural breakdown, mob justice, the list is long.<p>If in China Tiktok users get a cap of 2 hours of usage in which only productive/interesting (science) content is shown whilst in the US teenagers use it for 5-7 hours leading to a mental health crisis, then we're talking about radically different outcomes.<p>This doesn't mean that social media is only bad, nor does it mean we should ban it. I'm just saying that we should stop seeing it as an unimportant toy. It potentially is a weapon of mass destruction.
A strategy doomed to failure: kick the far-right off Twitter so they can plan a revolution on Parler. Kick the QAnon people off Facebook so they can reorganize on Gab. All this will ever achieve is to scatter people into deeper and darker ideological echo chambers.
These comments are filled with whataboutism. America is terrible. Rich people and corporations already control everything. American democracy is strong enough to resist, or maybe American democracy is already fucked, and this bill is pointless. America is just as bad on human rights as China. Congress is sinophobic for even considering China a geopolitical rival. American social media companies do the same thing.<p>All of these claims are <i>heavily</i> debatable. But more importantly, none of this is remotely relevant to the bill. The policy question is whether or not Congress should allow 150 million Americans to be influenced by a platform controlled (directly or indirectly) by the Chinese Communist Party.<p>I want to someone to actually make the case for why allowing TikTok in the U.S. is better for America than banning Tiktok (unless it divests from Chinese control). Someone needs to argue that:<p><pre><code> - Allowing TikTok is better for American national security than banning it
- Allowing TikTok is better for the health of americans than banning it
- Or, there is some substantial harm from banning it that outweighs those benefits.
</code></pre>
I'm sure there is a good argument to be made, but I don't know that it's shown up yet in the comments. I agree with the posters who think specific parts of the legislation are problematic. That makes sense! But that's not the core issue. People can oppose poorly crafted legislation that imposes on internet freedom while support banning this particular app at the same time.<p>And it's surprising to me that people still doubt that manipulating social media can cause societal-level effects. Back in 2014 Facebook published a study where they can increase or decrease levels of anxiety and depression by manipulating the emotional content of the news feed [1]. Back in 2012, academics estimated that 314,000 additional Americans voted in the 2010 congressional election because a they implemented a popup reminding people that "Today is election day."<p>As it stands, the Chinese government absolutely can use TikTok to manipulate the mental health of Americans, by influencing the content that is shown. The Chinese government can manipulate results of an election by preferentially showing a reminder voters of to one party or the other. Are they doing this already? The U.S. has no way to know, and no defense against this sort of manipulation. TikTok is absolutely a national security issue, and it's within Congress's purview to legislate around it.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1320040111" rel="nofollow">https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1320040111</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11401" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11401</a>