I wonder if this will be used as justification to ban Twitter and Meta apps in other countries. They've both already demonstrated the impact that they have on foreign populations and on elections....
I wonder if this will be used as justification to ban Twitter and Meta apps in other countries. They've both already demonstrated the impact that they have on foreign populations and on elections. Then recently they showed their strong links to the American government. I can't really see a difference in terms of risks.
For what it's worth China already bans these sorts of things. For example, Facebook is banned in China. The fact that the US has been allowing China to do this sort of business in the US while...
For what it's worth China already bans these sorts of things. For example, Facebook is banned in China. The fact that the US has been allowing China to do this sort of business in the US while they ban the US doing the same in China has already been an imbalance.
Tiktok is already banned in several countries (including China) as well as banned on government devices in quite a few more. US social media is already banned in China, so it's not like they can...
Tiktok is already banned in several countries (including China) as well as banned on government devices in quite a few more. US social media is already banned in China, so it's not like they can retaliate in kind (though they may look for some other way to retaliate) and if European countries wanted to ban US social media then they would have moved to do so already. In the end it'll be interesting to see what this precedent gets used for in the US but as far as shaking up the social media landscape goes I doubt this will have any meaningful ripples. Consumers will move to a different platform and the cycle will continue.
Considering how close the referendum was I think it's reasonably likely that Meta was the deciding factor in Brexit. Up until now the political party in power in the UK was made up of an...
Up until now the political party in power in the UK was made up of an increasingly large number of Brexit supporters. Now that's changed I wouldn't be surprised if foreign companies responsible for electoral interference that's caused horrific damage to the country are held responsible.
Especially considering the war that Twitter/X is waging on the British government and how politically aligned Meta is. These companies appear to be deeply political and their interests don't align with those of the British public.
He's endorsing a party known to be neonazi as well (Alternative fur Deutschland). So if we have two oligarchs owning the majority of "approved" social networking platforms, and using them to...
He's endorsing a party known to be neonazi as well (Alternative fur Deutschland). So if we have two oligarchs owning the majority of "approved" social networking platforms, and using them to promote right-wing extremism, that means TikTok is the primary bastion of sanity (at least that the masses use)...
And Facebook actually has a proven track record of electoral manipulation, considering the Cambridge Analytica scandal surrounding the 2016 election of Trump.
Every accusation aimed at TikTok (as much as I dislike both channel-flipping and vertical video) is an admission of how our government and oligarchs view domestic social networking platforms: as tools to manipulate the public, hide information from them, and surveil. And it's a bald faced affront to the first amendment, no matter what legal tap dancing is done to justify it.
CA was a separate company which harvested data from Facebook and sold it to inform political decisionmaking. It was a scandal for a reason (mostly because they were collecting data from friends...
And Facebook actually has a proven track record of electoral manipulation, considering the Cambridge Analytica scandal surrounding the 2016 election of Trump.
CA was a separate company which harvested data from Facebook and sold it to inform political decisionmaking. It was a scandal for a reason (mostly because they were collecting data from friends who didn't opt in) but it's completely different from the allegations against bytedance. (Basically "you weren't careful enough about letting other companies harvest data" versus "you're intentionally harvesting data at the behest of a foreign government.")
I wouldn‘t be so sure about „bastion of sanity: the right-wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is actually very successful on TikTok, arguably much more than the other, more...
I wouldn‘t be so sure about „bastion of sanity: the right-wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is actually very successful on TikTok, arguably much more than the other, more moderate parties. Extreme messages spread very easily on social media.
Never forget that Călin Georgescu, a far-right pro-Russian populist, came out of nowhere to "win" the Romanian PM election after a campaign conducted essentially entirely on TikTok. TikTok does...
Never forget that Călin Georgescu, a far-right pro-Russian populist, came out of nowhere to "win" the Romanian PM election after a campaign conducted essentially entirely on TikTok.
TikTok does not have the high ground over other social media platforms in this regard.
The one thing that sticks out to me: this ban got bipartisan support in Congress last year in an election year. The fact both sides agreed on this, when TikTok is such a popular platform and one...
The one thing that sticks out to me: this ban got bipartisan support in Congress last year in an election year. The fact both sides agreed on this, when TikTok is such a popular platform and one side could easily try to villify the other for supporting the ban, feels pretty significant to me. I don't think they'd support a ban just because of the propaganda angle, there has to be some other serious stuff to convince them to support it.
I also recall a comment on reddit a couple years ago breaking down the data collection Tiktok does, via reverse-engineering and various tools. While I can't remember the exact details or find it, I remember the poster was a bit alarmrd by the extent. I think it went beyond the usual data collection standards, which is doubly alarming when that data is freely accessible by the Chinese government.
Particularly salient (iirc, I'm finding it hard to search for news less recent than the past week) is that every single member of the security committee in the Senate was in favor of the ban after...
Particularly salient (iirc, I'm finding it hard to search for news less recent than the past week) is that every single member of the security committee in the Senate was in favor of the ban after a single briefing. And when I heard that I figured the ban probably makes sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Foreign_Adversary_Controlled_Applications_Act It looks like it was the House Energy and Commerce Committee that passed it out to the...
It looks like it was the House Energy and Commerce Committee that passed it out to the House, not a Security committee.
The whole bill was only passed as part of a larger package
ETA: The wiki article also cites the guy that specifically said he was wanting to ban it because of the pro-Palestinian advocacy there so that didn't help things.
The Homeland Security Committee got a briefing, but the Senate Commerce and Intelligence Committees also got briefed. The latter was the big one:...
The Homeland Security Committee got a briefing, but the Senate Commerce and Intelligence Committees also got briefed. The latter was the big one:
Senators from both parties say the public should get access to at least some of the sensitive information that U.S. agencies shared at a closed-door classified intelligence briefing Wednesday about the influence and reach of TikTok.
Thanks I didn't find that briefing amidst the results for the "general" one. It seems similar there are calls for a public briefing, and some or all of the information to be disclosed. And Cotton...
Thanks I didn't find that briefing amidst the results for the "general" one. It seems similar there are calls for a public briefing, and some or all of the information to be disclosed. And Cotton harping on the pro-Palestinian POV.
More calls for more information and a few descriptions of Tiktok that I think if tell me that they were briefed on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter's algorithm and the type of things shared and discussed there in a similar manner, they'd advocate banning those too.
But I can't find that they've released any of this information! Honestly people might have turned on the app if they'd actually talked to the American people while not complaining about Palestine and acting like the userbase was all literally children.
I'm just tired of one more outrageous thing after another and upset about losing what seems like a genuinely irreplaceable resource for mental health/neurodivergent education and the only place ive successfully gotten my algorithm to prioritize diverse voices - I can't get YouTube shorts to show me the subscriptions I have to Black creators, like, ever.
No, the information is still classified, AFAIK. I don't see how it differs from Instagram Reels, for example, but I've never used TikTok more than grudgingly so I wouldn't really know.
But I can't find that they've released any of this information!
No, the information is still classified, AFAIK.
upset about losing what seems like a genuinely irreplaceable resource for mental health/neurodivergent education
I don't see how it differs from Instagram Reels, for example, but I've never used TikTok more than grudgingly so I wouldn't really know.
I find Instagram really difficult and frustrating to use. I never got into it, and the algorithm is not as good and the comments are full of really shitty people. One obvious difference is that I...
I find Instagram really difficult and frustrating to use. I never got into it, and the algorithm is not as good and the comments are full of really shitty people.
One obvious difference is that I follow a number of registered dieticians who don't do weight loss, but talk about healthy attitudes towards food and movement and recipes. Instagram and any other new app tends to try to feed me weight loss, supplements and diet content immediately if I express interest in "wellness"
TT had a very responsive algorithm and other than very occasional ads (I also occasionally got ads for like the Noah's Ark museum) I never got weight loss content. I'm trying to rebuild the creators unfollow on IG now but it's still really annoying and inconsistent
I would be extremely suspect about any information provided by social media in the area of any sort of health, regardless of platform. I get "this feed was better at understanding what I wanted to...
I'm just tired of one more outrageous thing after another and upset about losing what seems like a genuinely irreplaceable resource for mental health/neurodivergent education
I would be extremely suspect about any information provided by social media in the area of any sort of health, regardless of platform.
I get "this feed was better at understanding what I wanted to see" but that's a far cry from "irreplaceable educational resource"
I work in the field of mental health. I have a degree in counseling. It was one of the few places I consistently found good ADHD strategies for adults, for example, from ADHD adults. They were...
I work in the field of mental health. I have a degree in counseling. It was one of the few places I consistently found good ADHD strategies for adults, for example, from ADHD adults. They were incredibly effective for myself and my students. And they were validating. Rinse repeat for a number of other topics. Plus it was excellent for affirmations I use in presentations with my students - which they appreciated because they're on Tiktok too. (I downloaded a bunch to try to be sure I have some for a bit longer)
Be skeptical. The algorithm really was that good at getting me what I wanted to see. Thus far I cannot get the same material from YouTube or IG and I even reset one of my YouTube feeds from scratch.
ETA also trans and queer material was mostly free of harassment. Body shaming stuff happened but big voices in the community responded to it. Moderating your comments seemed easier. It's not perfect and I am not a creator but the quality of life on Facebook, YouTube and IG are significantly worse just from a community standpoint. (Because the algorithm keeps haters away generally)
Are you thinking of this?: Reverse Engineering Tiktok's VM Obfuscation (Part 1) (At least that's the blog post that I remember from a few years ago that made the rounds.)
That might be at least the basis for the comment I saw? I know I read it on reddit itself and not an external link. It's been a while, but I think it included a bullet point list alongside the...
That might be at least the basis for the comment I saw? I know I read it on reddit itself and not an external link. It's been a while, but I think it included a bullet point list alongside the breakdown to help explain what information exactly was being gathered.
This is a pretty naive view of how all this works. Lots of companies chuck cash at projects and problems. There's not enough money to buy the kind of behavior we've seen with the...
This is a pretty naive view of how all this works. Lots of companies chuck cash at projects and problems. There's not enough money to buy the kind of behavior we've seen with the congress/senate/committees/SC at this point. This is uniquely unusual behavior, especially in the modern political environment, especially in an election year.
Of course, it's gotten extra dumb/weird with everyone at the last moment seeming to get cold feet and hope that someone else will torpedo the law.
From the beginning, Rep Jeff Jackson, a D rep from NC (since gerrymandered out and now incoming AG there) who has a reputation for giving calm relatively evenhanded portrayals of what happened in...
From the beginning, Rep Jeff Jackson, a D rep from NC (since gerrymandered out and now incoming AG there) who has a reputation for giving calm relatively evenhanded portrayals of what happened in Congress like "many of the people you see making waves do that for the cameras and are entirely different when they're not trying to get media attention", he voted to ban it, while remaining on the app, and said "I don't think it'll get banned, I think they'll sell.". He got lambasted and did a weird hoodie wearing apology saying he handled it badly, but never got his cred back fully.
The hypocrisy was galling, but the outright "I voted for this but don't actually want it or think it'll happen" was ridiculous. And it's led me to believe they thought they could force a sale and have America "win" but never really felt like there was a major threat. It's all felt like a cold war play more than a genuine concern for my safety as an American.
And that's why this last minute panic doesn't surprise me. They still didn't think it'd get banned, and now no one is quite sure what to do. And by the time they figure it out, it won't matter, Tiktok will be dead and the next thing will be in. And Cotton and his ilk will complain about young people disagreeing with him about Palestine there too, I'm sure.
if that notion was remotely accurate, then good for Tiktok. Much better to just take your ball and go elsewhere than fall for the allure of short term money of the plutocracy. American CEOs can...
if that notion was remotely accurate, then good for Tiktok. Much better to just take your ball and go elsewhere than fall for the allure of short term money of the plutocracy. American CEOs can learn from this.
Still also fits into the money theory too. Who else but X or Meta would be able to buy Tiktok? The failure to sell is an unoptimal move for them, but they ultimately still win in the end.
Oh I mean the CEO seems quite inclined to fawn over Trump now too. So fuck everyone I guess. I'm not arguing against a corporate/financial interest angle so much, it just seems like it probably...
Oh I mean the CEO seems quite inclined to fawn over Trump now too. So fuck everyone I guess. I'm not arguing against a corporate/financial interest angle so much, it just seems like it probably wasn't worthy of a ban based on how everyone has acted throughout. I'd fully believe that Zuckerberg wanted to kill it or own it. But idk that I buy that he's pissed that people moved to Rednote or whatever, and it's not that many
Given the last 3 years, and the next 4. I hink we're going to be challenged on that belief. There's more billionarires in history now than ever, and as of as recently as 2023, the 1% are richer...
There's not enough money to buy the kind of behavior we've seen with the congress/senate/committees/SC at this point.
Given the last 3 years, and the next 4. I hink we're going to be challenged on that belief. There's more billionarires in history now than ever, and as of as recently as 2023, the 1% are richer than the bottom 60%.
In addition to what Eji1700 said, I have to imagine that going to the government, asking them to go after competitors is a double-edged sword. If the government can go after one player in your...
In addition to what Eji1700 said, I have to imagine that going to the government, asking them to go after competitors is a double-edged sword. If the government can go after one player in your industry, they can go after your company too. Maybe not immediately, but in the future, using some of the same reasoning that your company, CEO, whoever, used to go after the competitor. There's a reason why competitors in the same field often work together, and even formally get together to form industry groups and associations that will go to bat for them all.
Sure, big companies usually crowd-out smaller companies, sometimes using govt regulation as an anti-competitive cudgel. But TikTok obviously isn't a small company. They're a major player in this space. I imagine every major social media company, tech company, and foreign-owned company operating in the US was watching this closely. And hoping that SCOTUS would overturn the ban. Even if this particular legislation can't be used against US-based companies or companies owned and operated from currently friendly countries, it's still opening Pandora's Box in a way (and yes, I know this isn't the first time the government has forced a sale or break-up of a company). Especially given the incoming admin and the tantrums that will likely come about.
I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm pro both of those things (though not necessarily pro-banning of TikTok; more neutral than anything). But I'm just looking at it from the potential perspective of these companies. Business rarely wants any regulation, yet this is just another example of it. The most extreme version of it.
To be fair (and somewhat argue against myself obviously), a big reason tik tok is unique is because it's a foreign owned company. Facebook can drag a senator through some silicon valley office or...
In addition to what Eji1700 said, I have to imagine that going to the government, asking them to go after competitors is a double-edged sword.
To be fair (and somewhat argue against myself obviously), a big reason tik tok is unique is because it's a foreign owned company. Facebook can drag a senator through some silicon valley office or local data center and explain how many jobs and donations they're bringing their district, it's not quite the same for tiktok (although god knows they do that as well).
The fact that there are local competitors to tiktok absolutely contributed to the ban, as happens with literally every ban, but anyone claiming it's some mass conspiracy solely organized by Musk/Zuck or whatever doesn't really get just how unusual this is.
Wasn't it passed as part of a foreign aid bill package though? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Foreign_Adversary_Controlled_Applications_Act
The one thing that sticks out to me: this ban got bipartisan support in Congress last year in an election year.
Wasn't it passed as part of a foreign aid bill package though?
Follow the money. This may be conspiracy here since I didn't sniff down the trail, ,but I hear every SCOTUS member has stock in Meta. If that truly is the case, this isn't a surpring outcome....
there has to be some other serious stuff to convince them to support it.
Follow the money. This may be conspiracy here since I didn't sniff down the trail, ,but I hear every SCOTUS member has stock in Meta. If that truly is the case, this isn't a surpring outcome.
There are two parties, but not divided by ideaology.
I downloaded the 2023 financial disclosures for Sotomayor and Roberts and found no related stock holdings. Sotomayor appears to not hold any individual stocks. Roberts keeps it small: LRCX and...
I downloaded the 2023 financial disclosures for Sotomayor and Roberts and found no related stock holdings. Sotomayor appears to not hold any individual stocks. Roberts keeps it small: LRCX and TMO. They both seem to focus on ETFs, probably out of a concern for conflict of interest. Unless they suddenly changed for 2024, it appears that they are not trying to get rich off their decisions.
It seems incredulous that all nine justices would own META and then issue a unanimous decision to manipulate the stock in their favor and no one mainstream figured it out. Doesn't pass the smell test.
EDIT: In the course of researching this, I saw a Jacobin news article that said "Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito own shares in a combined 19 companies". When I downloaded the 2022 disclosure that would have been available for that article, Roberts held 2 individual stocks. This is why I can't take Jacobin at face value.
EDIT 2: I removed TXN from what Roberts has. He sold it in 2022, and I must have had that report open when writing the comment. 2023 I don't see it in there. Link to 2023
Seems like a bit of a clusterfuck of mixed signals. My prediction for what’s going to happen: Apple and Google will take TikTok off of the app stores on Sunday TikTok will continue working for...
Seems like a bit of a clusterfuck of mixed signals. My prediction for what’s going to happen:
Apple and Google will take TikTok off of the app stores on Sunday
TikTok will continue working for people who still have the app installed
The app will continue in a limbo state for several months until Trump either forces an amended law through congress or makes some bullshit random legal argument that no one will contest about the president having ultimate say over national security.
TikTok will be unbanned but make token concessions
The statue of limitations for civil infractions of the law is five years with a penalty of $5,000 per user. Even if Trump said that enforcement would be suspended, the next president could enforce...
The statue of limitations for civil infractions of the law is five years with a penalty of $5,000 per user. Even if Trump said that enforcement would be suspended, the next president could enforce those penalties. I don't see Apple or Google taking that risk. I suspect the app will stay removed, and the platform dark in the US until the law is changed (if the law is changed).
Right now the law says TikTok (by name) OR a social media service owned by a foreign entity that the president under his discretion considers a national security threat. I suspect Trump will have...
Right now the law says TikTok (by name) OR a social media service owned by a foreign entity that the president under his discretion considers a national security threat.
I suspect Trump will have it amended to JUST have the second clause.
Why so? They have both houses. I’m sure you can find some democrats to sign on in the senate. It’s not like the bill was universally popular amongst democrats either, and many young democrats are...
Why so? They have both houses. I’m sure you can find some democrats to sign on in the senate. It’s not like the bill was universally popular amongst democrats either, and many young democrats are not in favor.
Subjective assessment, so take it for what's that's worth. It's hard to get anything through Congress, so inaction isn't a bad starting bet. The bill has good bipartisan support. Trump may have...
Subjective assessment, so take it for what's that's worth.
It's hard to get anything through Congress, so inaction isn't a bad starting bet.
The bill has good bipartisan support. Trump may have changed his mind, but that is different than thinking it is important enough to make a legislative priority and displace other actions.
It happened on Biden's watch, so even if it gets unpopular, it's a useful tool to blame the Democrats with.
Trump has already alienated a number of Republican legislators, including the now former chair of the house intelligence committee, and the margins are razor thin.
My eight ball says unlikely, unless the Republicans think it will become a midterm issue. That would be enough to get them all lock step, even the ones Trump has pissed off. Trump's remarks today also seemed cagey, giving him time to see where the wind from the fallout blows.
It would require getting 31 Republican senators plus a handful of Democrats to change their vote. But the house would be even more of a challenge I think given the number of votes that would need...
It would require getting 31 Republican senators plus a handful of Democrats to change their vote. But the house would be even more of a challenge I think given the number of votes that would need to change there.
I think Trump can absolutely get every Republican to vote his way on the issue. Remember, it wouldn’t be a repeal, but merely putting more power of the law in his hands. It’s be hard to argue to...
I think Trump can absolutely get every Republican to vote his way on the issue. Remember, it wouldn’t be a repeal, but merely putting more power of the law in his hands. It’s be hard to argue to your maga loving constituents about that one. “You don’t trust god emperor Trump? How dare you!”
If they can bully Joni Ernst, military veteran and champion of women’s rights in the military, to confirm Hegseth, this is a no brainer.
Out of curiosity, what effect does this have on TikTok's web presence? Could they not simply skirt the law with a PWA? What about sideloading on supported platforms?
Out of curiosity, what effect does this have on TikTok's web presence? Could they not simply skirt the law with a PWA? What about sideloading on supported platforms?
Trump literally owns a social media company. He has a clear financial incentive to enforce a ban on TikTok and no real incentive to rescind it in any way. People can grumble about it to him but he...
Trump literally owns a social media company. He has a clear financial incentive to enforce a ban on TikTok and no real incentive to rescind it in any way. People can grumble about it to him but he can just throw his hands up and blame congress and Biden. It's not like it will hurt his chances of reelection.
I mean you can clearly see he’s trying very hard to right now to NOT have TikTok banned, from promising not to enforce it to randomly injecting an opinion in the SC case. I suspect there’s a quid...
I mean you can clearly see he’s trying very hard to right now to NOT have TikTok banned, from promising not to enforce it to randomly injecting an opinion in the SC case. I suspect there’s a quid pro quo of some kind, but in any case, he’s clearly highly invested in not having TikTok banned, for whatever reason.
Or 2.5: the app only serves videos showing a list of the senators and congresspeople responsible, based on the user's state, and a message saying they're responsible. Bipartisan support for taking...
Or 2.5: the app only serves videos showing a list of the senators and congresspeople responsible, based on the user's state, and a message saying they're responsible.
Bipartisan support for taking the circus away, and with Trump tariffs promising to make bread very expensive, isn't a good look. The midterm elections would be wild.
Bytedance already pulled that stunt, and it was a huge reason the ban got passed. Voters have goldfish memories anyway, so I doubt this will matter during the midterms.
Bytedance already pulled that stunt, and it was a huge reason the ban got passed. Voters have goldfish memories anyway, so I doubt this will matter during the midterms.
Bytedance has stated they will start disabling accounts and shutting down the service. If the ban goes through, number two and three in your list may not happen.
Bytedance has stated they will start disabling accounts and shutting down the service. If the ban goes through, number two and three in your list may not happen.
Considering Congress was strongly opposed to it before the classified session, I suspect that there is a real, compelling, classified national security justification.
Considering Congress was strongly opposed to it before the classified session, I suspect that there is a real, compelling, classified national security justification.
Oh there's no mistake Congress now buys into the justifications. I'm sure the arguments are compelling to Congress, which means absolutely nothing to me, as next-to-none of them align with my...
Oh there's no mistake Congress now buys into the justifications. I'm sure the arguments are compelling to Congress, which means absolutely nothing to me, as next-to-none of them align with my views or represent me, even remotely. They're all up to their noses in the US's horseshit.
I'm not even saying the law is unconstitutional, because whether or not something aligns with their interpretation of that religious text matters little to me
I respect and support your difference of opinion on this (The last thing I'd want to do is exist in an echochamber), but the control of TikTok over youth and yound adults is a genuine national...
I respect and support your difference of opinion on this (The last thing I'd want to do is exist in an echochamber), but the control of TikTok over youth and yound adults is a genuine national security crisis.
We live in an age of information warfare, and we've been at war since at least 2014-2016 (even longer depending on who you ask). Influencing and disabling the next generation (and creating a generational distrust of the American system) is a key element of the Chinese strategy outlined in a (I believe) 2007 book published by a PLA strategist(?) for China to overtake the US as the world's leading superpower.
My understanding of this perspective is that it places China as a greater threat to the population's well-being and national security, but the competitors in this space have no credibility that...
My understanding of this perspective is that it places China as a greater threat to the population's well-being and national security, but the competitors in this space have no credibility that they're any better even though they aren't under the authority of China. I don't believe this ban improves the national security of the US or the well-being of the population because the competitors that weren't banned are just as threatening, perhaps in different ways but still just as dangerous.
If you have a boat with a handful of holes in it, you could also say that repairing one of the holes doesn't stop the boat from sinking, but I think this is an excellent first step to stopping...
I don't believe this ban improves the national security of the US or the well-being of the population because the competitors that weren't banned are just as threatening…
If you have a boat with a handful of holes in it, you could also say that repairing one of the holes doesn't stop the boat from sinking, but I think this is an excellent first step to stopping foreign influence on American life.
My understanding of this perspective is that it places China as a greater threat to the population's well-being and national security, but the competitors in this space have no credibility that they're any better even though they aren't under the authority of China.
The differences in being controlled by American elites with Quasi-American values and the Chinese government cannot be understated. The US elite are selfish ego-driven losers, but they at least are required to provide some benefit (or illusion of benefit) to the people. The Chinese government actively wants to destroy our way of life and make us into chattel slaves.
The government has not provided any evidence that Tiktok is either. Plus less than 25% of the app users are able to be teenagers, because of 170 million users, there are only 42 million...
The government has not provided any evidence that Tiktok is either. Plus less than 25% of the app users are able to be teenagers, because of 170 million users, there are only 42 million adolescents between the ages of 10 and 19 in the country. There's only 34 million people in their 20s.
If Tiktok is controlling anyone, including the youth, they're really bad at it.
There is plenty of evidence that TikTok is manipulating the visibility of videos on political topics sensitive to the CCP TikTok has censored #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd, blocked a teenager...
There is plenty of evidence that TikTok is manipulating the visibility of videos on political topics sensitive to the CCP
I'm not sure I buy that. My understanding is that conservative-leaning voters saw the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 as dangerous riots, representing a breakdown of law and order. I would...
I'm not sure I buy that. My understanding is that conservative-leaning voters saw the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 as dangerous riots, representing a breakdown of law and order. I would think that you would want to boost that content to present the Left as dangerous and out of control.
Chaos gets blamed on the incumbent by the public at large regardless of who’s fault it factually is. Biden took the backlash for the chaotic Afghanistan pullout regardless of the fact that the...
Chaos gets blamed on the incumbent by the public at large regardless of who’s fault it factually is.
Biden took the backlash for the chaotic Afghanistan pullout regardless of the fact that the withdraw deal was negotiated and signed by Trump.
Yes, and that's an ethical issue. How is that a national security issue? Fox news lies on national TV all the time in a way that supports an incoming President who tried to do a coup and got...
Yes, and that's an ethical issue. How is that a national security issue?
Fox news lies on national TV all the time in a way that supports an incoming President who tried to do a coup and got reelected. But they outright lie, OANN and Truth Social exist. Murdoch became a US citizen but still does the same stuff in the UK and Australia. His naturalization makes the propaganda fine because it's domestic now?
You have people not fully sold that national borders are a thing that should exist, telling them it's ok they're lied to by someone on one side of the line but not the other is not a winning argument. There's a lot of censorship on domestic platforms, Facebook has sold our data to many people, including Chinese companies, and using the term "cis' gets you moderated on Twitter while literal Nazis can post.
And most of the teens aren't watching political stuff to begin with, they're sharing memes/sounds/dances. I'm not saying censorship is fine, I'm saying it isn't unique nor related to our national security.
It took about a day before I started seeing a fully fake news headline on a fake article screenshot making up anti COVID vaccine propaganda when Facebook changed their policies lately. The report button on Tiktok at least does something.
Because China is a power actively hostile to the United States and global democracy generally. Loudly pledging support for Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and proclaiming their intent to...
Yes, and that's an ethical issue. How is that a national security issue?
Because China is a power actively hostile to the United States and global democracy generally. Loudly pledging support for Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and proclaiming their intent to invade and conquer Taiwan in the next decade. China’s invasion of Taiwan will spark war with the United States. If you game theory out their best chances of success for invasion, they will preemptively bomb American military bases in Japan and Guam at the same time they launch their invasion.
Nothing you are complaining about it actively supported or directed by the United States government. The Biden administration is opposed to everything you are complaining about but they didn’t go in and ban Fox News or block Musk’s ownership of Twitter because the US is a strong constitutional democracy. And China is trying to exploit our values of free speech and debate for their own malicious ends.
China has banned American social media in China for over a decade. The CCP by law has a golden controlling share on ByteDance’s board to directly assert its control. These situations are not the same.
If our strong constitutional democracy had debated it, had shared the information that multiple Senators said should be made public and wasn't actively trying to overturn the ban that they voted...
If our strong constitutional democracy had debated it, had shared the information that multiple Senators said should be made public and wasn't actively trying to overturn the ban that they voted for on an app they've continued to use, I'd take that seriously.
We don't actually know if or how China is "trying to exploit our free speech" because that information isn't public. But lets assume they always are, at all times - their censorship of material critical of China is a problem. What amount of censorship is happening and how does that censorship "exploit" our speech and lead them to bomb our bases? Because the censorship is what you're saying is the national security issue? Everyone's saying it's bad - and sure - but we disagree on the amount of "Bad" and what the response should be to it.
Maybe the security info is really that bad, but none of that tracks with how this was passed, the responses from people coming out of the briefings, the failure to declassify and share, the continued use by politicians, the exemptions on bans on government phones for people using it as part of their job, the attempted repeal by people who voted for it, the objection to not having debate over the bill the first time, the people that voted for it saying they didn't think it would be banned from the beginning, and the long delay itself.
NPR was literally saying that now Congress understands that 170 million people use it and that small businesses rely on it for their income, which demonstrates to me that they weren't really paying attention to it before. I am not saying "woo give China all our data and don't care at all." I'm not on Rednote and don't plan to be. But I find all of this panic - combined again with the explicit racism and absolute lack of understanding about technology - incredibly unconvincing.
And while overarching data privacy is "not the same" since our data is being sold to pretty much anyone - and yeah there's a law, but it doesn't get you shut down if you break it, and I'm sincerely doubting it's hard to get through a secondary data broker anyway. And that's when it isn't just freely available online. If national security is a priority, protecting all Americans' data, not just half of them, would be a move that would also probably end up banning Tiktok in its current form but we'd come out of it with actual protections and avoided being hypocritical as a nation every time we've criticized China for controlling their citizen's access to the internet. The whole thing has been handled poorly, and still is, and that assumes there's actually some sort of significant risk, which again remains unproven.
I'm not sure that follows. Just because there's a lot of non-youth on the app doesn't mean that they're not also holding large sway over the youth. "About six-in-ten teens ages 13 to 17 (63%) say...
Sure, but 75 percent of the users of the app are not children is my point. And that's a rough estimate. Also, the government hasn't actually shared that evidence with the public despite multiple...
Sure, but 75 percent of the users of the app are not children is my point. And that's a rough estimate.
Also, the government hasn't actually shared that evidence with the public despite multiple senators saying they should share some or all of it.
Despite the "controlling" of the youth the app wasn't outright banned but was given a long lead time and they bundled the vote into an aid bill (and didn't stop using the app themselves). And now, despite this threat to national security there's a scramble to un-ban it by some of those same people. The narrative that everyone went into a briefing and came out in favor is not true. Both House members and Senators voted against that aid package.
75% not being children doesn't mean that the impact on children is not a big deal. Real anecdote: 25% of my users are from one country, but they use my company's app so heavily and the expensive...
75% not being children doesn't mean that the impact on children is not a big deal. Real anecdote: 25% of my users are from one country, but they use my company's app so heavily and the expensive features even more abnormally it's actually screwing up cost projections for us. Of TikTok's 170M US users, we don't know the breakdown of how heavily those users use the app and the demographics of that.
The government often doesn't share information that some senators think should be shared; that's not abnormal.
They didn't need to outright ban it immediately even if they could demonstrate that it had an effect on people because influence is an indirect power that doesn't need an immediate reaction. It can wait 6 months or however long it took.
I believe the ban has more to do with potential than current behavior. I'm sure that they demonstrated that the algorithm steered some political topics. I'm sure they then weighed against that China powers the app. In this thread we see that people keep mentioning Facebook and Twitter. Yes, those also influence people, but the companies and the owners reside in the West where we can arrest them and stop it if we needed to urgently. We couldn't with TikTok, so we wanted to move that to the West. China didn't want to sell (as they shouldn't). Potential, not immediate threat.
And then you’d sit there for years and not worry about the other holes in the boat? Because that’s what the US has and will continue to do. A fix is a comprehensive privacy law that controls what...
If you have a boat with a handful of holes in it, you could also say that repairing one of the holes doesn't stop the boat from sinking, but I think this is an excellent first step to stopping foreign influence on American life.
And then you’d sit there for years and not worry about the other holes in the boat? Because that’s what the US has and will continue to do.
A fix is a comprehensive privacy law that controls what information any app can gather.
Do you mean the Russian book, Foundations of Geopolitics (1997), or is there also a Chinese version of the same thing?
Influencing and disabling the next generation (and creating a generational distrust of the American system) is a key element of the Chinese strategy outlined in a (I believe) 2007 book published by a PLA strategist(?) for China to overtake the US as the world's leading superpower.
No, this was a Chinese strategy book released in the 2000s, covering biowarfare, information warfare, and computer warfare. It was released out to the PLA at some point and then translated.
No, this was a Chinese strategy book released in the 2000s, covering biowarfare, information warfare, and computer warfare. It was released out to the PLA at some point and then translated.
Sure, it is a genuine crisis to those that see any dismantling of US hegemony as a bad thing (I don't). So, I understand why they're approaching it the way they are, I just share no sense of...
Sure, it is a genuine crisis to those that see any dismantling of US hegemony as a bad thing (I don't). So, I understand why they're approaching it the way they are, I just share no sense of desire to protect said system's hegemony or protect our citizenry/youth from distrusting and dropping support of it. In fact, I specifically prefer more people distrust it and see our own internal information warfare the government and its corporate and media buddies wage on the public
"National security" is a magic phrase that Congress and the executive branch can use to get the judiciary to accept whatever unconstitutional bullshit they want to do. Decades of precedent of the...
"National security" is a magic phrase that Congress and the executive branch can use to get the judiciary to accept whatever unconstitutional bullshit they want to do. Decades of precedent of the courts allowing basically anything with "national security" as justification.
While that might be true, it's not the case here. There is nothing unconstitutional about this, both incredibly obviously, and based in the fact that a very divided SCOTUS unanimously upheld the law.
While that might be true, it's not the case here. There is nothing unconstitutional about this, both incredibly obviously, and based in the fact that a very divided SCOTUS unanimously upheld the law.
I don’t necessarily believe that the TikTok ban was unjustified. Rather, justified or not, it was always going to be upheld because of the explicit national security justification. Tangentially, I...
I don’t necessarily believe that the TikTok ban was unjustified. Rather, justified or not, it was always going to be upheld because of the explicit national security justification. Tangentially, I think there should be discussion about the judiciary’s essentially carte blanche approval of laws on this ground. No fan of TikTok myself.
Can you point to other SCOTUS rulings that may seem to be laws that are unconstitutional that were upheld on the grounds of national security? I am unaware of any off the top of my head.
Can you point to other SCOTUS rulings that may seem to be laws that are unconstitutional that were upheld on the grounds of national security? I am unaware of any off the top of my head.
Here's a Harvard Law Review article going over the history of national security vs. constitutionality with examples: link. I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. For the record my use of...
Here's a Harvard Law Review article going over the history of national security vs. constitutionality with examples: link.
I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. For the record my use of "unconstitutional bullshit" represents my opinion.
The Patriot Act? I'm not actually sure how many cases went up and how far in the court system. But that is a key example of a law that is only allowable because national security
The Patriot Act?
I'm not actually sure how many cases went up and how far in the court system. But that is a key example of a law that is only allowable because national security
“Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said in an unsigned opinion, adding that the law “does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”
The ruling is an interesting read, especially Gorsuch's concurrence: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf Disclaimer: I'm a dummy who has not studied law-- it appears to...
Disclaimer: I'm a dummy who has not studied law-- it appears to focus on the data collection aspect of it moreso than the propaganda risk:
First, the Court rightly refrains from endorsing the gov-
ernment’s asserted interest in preventing “the covert ma-
nipulation of content” as a justification for the law before
us. Brief for Respondent 37. One man’s “covert content
manipulation” is another’s “editorial discretion.” Journal-
ists, publishers, and speakers of all kinds routinely make
less-than-transparent judgments about what stories to tell
and how to tell them. Without question, the First Amend-
ment has much to say about the right to make those choices.
It makes no difference that Americans (like TikTok Inc. and
many of its users) may wish to make decisions about what
they say in concert with a foreign adversary.
First, the Court rightly refrains from endorsing the government’s asserted interest in preventing “the covert manipulation of content” as a justification for the law before us. Brief for Respondent 37. One man’s “covert content manipulation” is another’s “editorial discretion.” Journalists, publishers, and speakers of all kinds routinely make less-than-transparent judgments about what stories to tell and how to tell them. Without question, the First Amendment has much to say about the right to make those choices. It makes no difference that Americans (like TikTok Inc. and many of its users) may wish to make decisions about what they say in concert with a foreign adversary.
I expect (and hope) its being banned in the US will kill it here too. That's like 3/5 of the anglosphere knocked off the platform, aka a significant chunk of the creators who'll migrate elsewhere,...
I expect (and hope) its being banned in the US will kill it here too. That's like 3/5 of the anglosphere knocked off the platform, aka a significant chunk of the creators who'll migrate elsewhere, probably followed by their users?
The duller among them are already migrating to Rednote, like that's somehow not even worse - the app's already popped up to replace TikTok in mobile gaming ads, which is pretty blatant.
The duller among them are already migrating to Rednote, like that's somehow not even worse - the app's already popped up to replace TikTok in mobile gaming ads, which is pretty blatant.
I wonder if this will be used as justification to ban Twitter and Meta apps in other countries. They've both already demonstrated the impact that they have on foreign populations and on elections. Then recently they showed their strong links to the American government. I can't really see a difference in terms of risks.
For what it's worth China already bans these sorts of things. For example, Facebook is banned in China. The fact that the US has been allowing China to do this sort of business in the US while they ban the US doing the same in China has already been an imbalance.
Tiktok is already banned in several countries (including China) as well as banned on government devices in quite a few more. US social media is already banned in China, so it's not like they can retaliate in kind (though they may look for some other way to retaliate) and if European countries wanted to ban US social media then they would have moved to do so already. In the end it'll be interesting to see what this precedent gets used for in the US but as far as shaking up the social media landscape goes I doubt this will have any meaningful ripples. Consumers will move to a different platform and the cycle will continue.
Considering how close the referendum was I think it's reasonably likely that Meta was the deciding factor in Brexit.
Up until now the political party in power in the UK was made up of an increasingly large number of Brexit supporters. Now that's changed I wouldn't be surprised if foreign companies responsible for electoral interference that's caused horrific damage to the country are held responsible.
Especially considering the war that Twitter/X is waging on the British government and how politically aligned Meta is. These companies appear to be deeply political and their interests don't align with those of the British public.
With Musk at the head of Twitter we're definitely seeing interference in the UK and German elections. At the least, major propaganda.
He's endorsing a party known to be neonazi as well (Alternative fur Deutschland). So if we have two oligarchs owning the majority of "approved" social networking platforms, and using them to promote right-wing extremism, that means TikTok is the primary bastion of sanity (at least that the masses use)...
And Facebook actually has a proven track record of electoral manipulation, considering the Cambridge Analytica scandal surrounding the 2016 election of Trump.
Every accusation aimed at TikTok (as much as I dislike both channel-flipping and vertical video) is an admission of how our government and oligarchs view domestic social networking platforms: as tools to manipulate the public, hide information from them, and surveil. And it's a bald faced affront to the first amendment, no matter what legal tap dancing is done to justify it.
CA was a separate company which harvested data from Facebook and sold it to inform political decisionmaking. It was a scandal for a reason (mostly because they were collecting data from friends who didn't opt in) but it's completely different from the allegations against bytedance. (Basically "you weren't careful enough about letting other companies harvest data" versus "you're intentionally harvesting data at the behest of a foreign government.")
I wouldn‘t be so sure about „bastion of sanity: the right-wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is actually very successful on TikTok, arguably much more than the other, more moderate parties. Extreme messages spread very easily on social media.
Never forget that Călin Georgescu, a far-right pro-Russian populist, came out of nowhere to "win" the Romanian PM election after a campaign conducted essentially entirely on TikTok.
TikTok does not have the high ground over other social media platforms in this regard.
The one thing that sticks out to me: this ban got bipartisan support in Congress last year in an election year. The fact both sides agreed on this, when TikTok is such a popular platform and one side could easily try to villify the other for supporting the ban, feels pretty significant to me. I don't think they'd support a ban just because of the propaganda angle, there has to be some other serious stuff to convince them to support it.
I also recall a comment on reddit a couple years ago breaking down the data collection Tiktok does, via reverse-engineering and various tools. While I can't remember the exact details or find it, I remember the poster was a bit alarmrd by the extent. I think it went beyond the usual data collection standards, which is doubly alarming when that data is freely accessible by the Chinese government.
Particularly salient (iirc, I'm finding it hard to search for news less recent than the past week) is that every single member of the security committee in the Senate was in favor of the ban after a single briefing. And when I heard that I figured the ban probably makes sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Foreign_Adversary_Controlled_Applications_Act
It looks like it was the House Energy and Commerce Committee that passed it out to the House, not a Security committee.
The whole bill was only passed as part of a larger package
This article says that the security briefing to the larger population didn't change minds, people left opposed and in favor.
https://whyy.org/articles/congress-tiktok-ban-bill/
ETA: The wiki article also cites the guy that specifically said he was wanting to ban it because of the pro-Palestinian advocacy there so that didn't help things.
The Homeland Security Committee got a briefing, but the Senate Commerce and Intelligence Committees also got briefed. The latter was the big one:
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-senate
Thanks I didn't find that briefing amidst the results for the "general" one. It seems similar there are calls for a public briefing, and some or all of the information to be disclosed. And Cotton harping on the pro-Palestinian POV.
More calls for more information and a few descriptions of Tiktok that I think if tell me that they were briefed on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter's algorithm and the type of things shared and discussed there in a similar manner, they'd advocate banning those too.
But I can't find that they've released any of this information! Honestly people might have turned on the app if they'd actually talked to the American people while not complaining about Palestine and acting like the userbase was all literally children.
I'm just tired of one more outrageous thing after another and upset about losing what seems like a genuinely irreplaceable resource for mental health/neurodivergent education and the only place ive successfully gotten my algorithm to prioritize diverse voices - I can't get YouTube shorts to show me the subscriptions I have to Black creators, like, ever.
No, the information is still classified, AFAIK.
I don't see how it differs from Instagram Reels, for example, but I've never used TikTok more than grudgingly so I wouldn't really know.
I find Instagram really difficult and frustrating to use. I never got into it, and the algorithm is not as good and the comments are full of really shitty people.
One obvious difference is that I follow a number of registered dieticians who don't do weight loss, but talk about healthy attitudes towards food and movement and recipes. Instagram and any other new app tends to try to feed me weight loss, supplements and diet content immediately if I express interest in "wellness"
TT had a very responsive algorithm and other than very occasional ads (I also occasionally got ads for like the Noah's Ark museum) I never got weight loss content. I'm trying to rebuild the creators unfollow on IG now but it's still really annoying and inconsistent
I would be extremely suspect about any information provided by social media in the area of any sort of health, regardless of platform.
I get "this feed was better at understanding what I wanted to see" but that's a far cry from "irreplaceable educational resource"
I work in the field of mental health. I have a degree in counseling. It was one of the few places I consistently found good ADHD strategies for adults, for example, from ADHD adults. They were incredibly effective for myself and my students. And they were validating. Rinse repeat for a number of other topics. Plus it was excellent for affirmations I use in presentations with my students - which they appreciated because they're on Tiktok too. (I downloaded a bunch to try to be sure I have some for a bit longer)
Be skeptical. The algorithm really was that good at getting me what I wanted to see. Thus far I cannot get the same material from YouTube or IG and I even reset one of my YouTube feeds from scratch.
ETA also trans and queer material was mostly free of harassment. Body shaming stuff happened but big voices in the community responded to it. Moderating your comments seemed easier. It's not perfect and I am not a creator but the quality of life on Facebook, YouTube and IG are significantly worse just from a community standpoint. (Because the algorithm keeps haters away generally)
Are you thinking of this?: Reverse Engineering Tiktok's VM Obfuscation (Part 1)
(At least that's the blog post that I remember from a few years ago that made the rounds.)
That might be at least the basis for the comment I saw? I know I read it on reddit itself and not an external link. It's been a while, but I think it included a bullet point list alongside the breakdown to help explain what information exactly was being gathered.
I just assumed the bipartisan support came from the money that I assume US Social Media companies are throwing at politicians.
This is a pretty naive view of how all this works. Lots of companies chuck cash at projects and problems. There's not enough money to buy the kind of behavior we've seen with the congress/senate/committees/SC at this point. This is uniquely unusual behavior, especially in the modern political environment, especially in an election year.
Of course, it's gotten extra dumb/weird with everyone at the last moment seeming to get cold feet and hope that someone else will torpedo the law.
From the beginning, Rep Jeff Jackson, a D rep from NC (since gerrymandered out and now incoming AG there) who has a reputation for giving calm relatively evenhanded portrayals of what happened in Congress like "many of the people you see making waves do that for the cameras and are entirely different when they're not trying to get media attention", he voted to ban it, while remaining on the app, and said "I don't think it'll get banned, I think they'll sell.". He got lambasted and did a weird hoodie wearing apology saying he handled it badly, but never got his cred back fully.
The hypocrisy was galling, but the outright "I voted for this but don't actually want it or think it'll happen" was ridiculous. And it's led me to believe they thought they could force a sale and have America "win" but never really felt like there was a major threat. It's all felt like a cold war play more than a genuine concern for my safety as an American.
And that's why this last minute panic doesn't surprise me. They still didn't think it'd get banned, and now no one is quite sure what to do. And by the time they figure it out, it won't matter, Tiktok will be dead and the next thing will be in. And Cotton and his ilk will complain about young people disagreeing with him about Palestine there too, I'm sure.
if that notion was remotely accurate, then good for Tiktok. Much better to just take your ball and go elsewhere than fall for the allure of short term money of the plutocracy. American CEOs can learn from this.
Still also fits into the money theory too. Who else but X or Meta would be able to buy Tiktok? The failure to sell is an unoptimal move for them, but they ultimately still win in the end.
Oh I mean the CEO seems quite inclined to fawn over Trump now too. So fuck everyone I guess. I'm not arguing against a corporate/financial interest angle so much, it just seems like it probably wasn't worthy of a ban based on how everyone has acted throughout. I'd fully believe that Zuckerberg wanted to kill it or own it. But idk that I buy that he's pissed that people moved to Rednote or whatever, and it's not that many
Given the last 3 years, and the next 4. I hink we're going to be challenged on that belief. There's more billionarires in history now than ever, and as of as recently as 2023, the 1% are richer than the bottom 60%.
In addition to what Eji1700 said, I have to imagine that going to the government, asking them to go after competitors is a double-edged sword. If the government can go after one player in your industry, they can go after your company too. Maybe not immediately, but in the future, using some of the same reasoning that your company, CEO, whoever, used to go after the competitor. There's a reason why competitors in the same field often work together, and even formally get together to form industry groups and associations that will go to bat for them all.
Sure, big companies usually crowd-out smaller companies, sometimes using govt regulation as an anti-competitive cudgel. But TikTok obviously isn't a small company. They're a major player in this space. I imagine every major social media company, tech company, and foreign-owned company operating in the US was watching this closely. And hoping that SCOTUS would overturn the ban. Even if this particular legislation can't be used against US-based companies or companies owned and operated from currently friendly countries, it's still opening Pandora's Box in a way (and yes, I know this isn't the first time the government has forced a sale or break-up of a company). Especially given the incoming admin and the tantrums that will likely come about.
I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm pro both of those things (though not necessarily pro-banning of TikTok; more neutral than anything). But I'm just looking at it from the potential perspective of these companies. Business rarely wants any regulation, yet this is just another example of it. The most extreme version of it.
To be fair (and somewhat argue against myself obviously), a big reason tik tok is unique is because it's a foreign owned company. Facebook can drag a senator through some silicon valley office or local data center and explain how many jobs and donations they're bringing their district, it's not quite the same for tiktok (although god knows they do that as well).
The fact that there are local competitors to tiktok absolutely contributed to the ban, as happens with literally every ban, but anyone claiming it's some mass conspiracy solely organized by Musk/Zuck or whatever doesn't really get just how unusual this is.
Wasn't it passed as part of a foreign aid bill package though?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Foreign_Adversary_Controlled_Applications_Act
Follow the money. This may be conspiracy here since I didn't sniff down the trail, ,but I hear every SCOTUS member has stock in Meta. If that truly is the case, this isn't a surpring outcome.
There are two parties, but not divided by ideaology.
I downloaded the 2023 financial disclosures for Sotomayor and Roberts and found no related stock holdings. Sotomayor appears to not hold any individual stocks. Roberts keeps it small: LRCX and TMO. They both seem to focus on ETFs, probably out of a concern for conflict of interest. Unless they suddenly changed for 2024, it appears that they are not trying to get rich off their decisions.
It seems incredulous that all nine justices would own META and then issue a unanimous decision to manipulate the stock in their favor and no one mainstream figured it out. Doesn't pass the smell test.
EDIT: In the course of researching this, I saw a Jacobin news article that said "Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito own shares in a combined 19 companies". When I downloaded the 2022 disclosure that would have been available for that article, Roberts held 2 individual stocks. This is why I can't take Jacobin at face value.
EDIT 2: I removed TXN from what Roberts has. He sold it in 2022, and I must have had that report open when writing the comment. 2023 I don't see it in there. Link to 2023
To be specific, it appears that they are not trying to get rich off their decisions by owning specific stock and manipulating the market.
Given how big Meta is, everyone who invests in a general stock mutual fund owns Meta stock. It's not a special characteristic of SCOTUS.
Seems like a bit of a clusterfuck of mixed signals. My prediction for what’s going to happen:
The statue of limitations for civil infractions of the law is five years with a penalty of $5,000 per user. Even if Trump said that enforcement would be suspended, the next president could enforce those penalties. I don't see Apple or Google taking that risk. I suspect the app will stay removed, and the platform dark in the US until the law is changed (if the law is changed).
Right now the law says TikTok (by name) OR a social media service owned by a foreign entity that the president under his discretion considers a national security threat.
I suspect Trump will have it amended to JUST have the second clause.
That would require Congress to amend the law. Which may happen, but I'm doubtful.
Why so? They have both houses. I’m sure you can find some democrats to sign on in the senate. It’s not like the bill was universally popular amongst democrats either, and many young democrats are not in favor.
Subjective assessment, so take it for what's that's worth.
My eight ball says unlikely, unless the Republicans think it will become a midterm issue. That would be enough to get them all lock step, even the ones Trump has pissed off. Trump's remarks today also seemed cagey, giving him time to see where the wind from the fallout blows.
You need 60 votes in the Senate. The vote the first time was 79 yeas, 18 nays, 3 not voting.
So Trump has enough votes.
It would require getting 31 Republican senators plus a handful of Democrats to change their vote. But the house would be even more of a challenge I think given the number of votes that would need to change there.
I think Trump can absolutely get every Republican to vote his way on the issue. Remember, it wouldn’t be a repeal, but merely putting more power of the law in his hands. It’s be hard to argue to your maga loving constituents about that one. “You don’t trust god emperor Trump? How dare you!”
If they can bully Joni Ernst, military veteran and champion of women’s rights in the military, to confirm Hegseth, this is a no brainer.
Well, we will see! It will be an interesting world on Monday.
To be clear not just any foreign entity, only specifically controlled by China, North Korea or, Iran. And must have at least 1 million American users.
Out of curiosity, what effect does this have on TikTok's web presence? Could they not simply skirt the law with a PWA? What about sideloading on supported platforms?
If I'm not mistaken, PWAs are still (purposely) limited on iOS in the US. So TikTok would have fractured support pathways if they took that approach.
Trump literally owns a social media company. He has a clear financial incentive to enforce a ban on TikTok and no real incentive to rescind it in any way. People can grumble about it to him but he can just throw his hands up and blame congress and Biden. It's not like it will hurt his chances of reelection.
I mean you can clearly see he’s trying very hard to right now to NOT have TikTok banned, from promising not to enforce it to randomly injecting an opinion in the SC case. I suspect there’s a quid pro quo of some kind, but in any case, he’s clearly highly invested in not having TikTok banned, for whatever reason.
There pretty much is via Jeff Yass, and lobbyists showing Trump charts that say he's extremely popular on Tiktok. He's easily flattered.
Or 2.5: the app only serves videos showing a list of the senators and congresspeople responsible, based on the user's state, and a message saying they're responsible.
Bipartisan support for taking the circus away, and with Trump tariffs promising to make bread very expensive, isn't a good look. The midterm elections would be wild.
Bytedance already pulled that stunt, and it was a huge reason the ban got passed. Voters have goldfish memories anyway, so I doubt this will matter during the midterms.
Bytedance has stated they will start disabling accounts and shutting down the service. If the ban goes through, number two and three in your list may not happen.
Ah yes, "national security", a classic item of US propaganda, the convenient excuse the nation loves to hide behind to justify its actions.
Some justifications are both valid and easily misused.
Considering Congress was strongly opposed to it before the classified session, I suspect that there is a real, compelling, classified national security justification.
Oh there's no mistake Congress now buys into the justifications. I'm sure the arguments are compelling to Congress, which means absolutely nothing to me, as next-to-none of them align with my views or represent me, even remotely. They're all up to their noses in the US's horseshit.
I'm not even saying the law is unconstitutional, because whether or not something aligns with their interpretation of that religious text matters little to me
I respect and support your difference of opinion on this (The last thing I'd want to do is exist in an echochamber), but the control of TikTok over youth and yound adults is a genuine national security crisis.
We live in an age of information warfare, and we've been at war since at least 2014-2016 (even longer depending on who you ask). Influencing and disabling the next generation (and creating a generational distrust of the American system) is a key element of the Chinese strategy outlined in a (I believe) 2007 book published by a PLA strategist(?) for China to overtake the US as the world's leading superpower.
My understanding of this perspective is that it places China as a greater threat to the population's well-being and national security, but the competitors in this space have no credibility that they're any better even though they aren't under the authority of China. I don't believe this ban improves the national security of the US or the well-being of the population because the competitors that weren't banned are just as threatening, perhaps in different ways but still just as dangerous.
If you have a boat with a handful of holes in it, you could also say that repairing one of the holes doesn't stop the boat from sinking, but I think this is an excellent first step to stopping foreign influence on American life.
The differences in being controlled by American elites with Quasi-American values and the Chinese government cannot be understated. The US elite are selfish ego-driven losers, but they at least are required to provide some benefit (or illusion of benefit) to the people. The Chinese government actively wants to destroy our way of life and make us into chattel slaves.
And is TikTok doing that but the state newspaper of China not?
The American youth isn't being controlled and manipulated by the Chinese newspapers.
The government has not provided any evidence that Tiktok is either. Plus less than 25% of the app users are able to be teenagers, because of 170 million users, there are only 42 million adolescents between the ages of 10 and 19 in the country. There's only 34 million people in their 20s.
If Tiktok is controlling anyone, including the youth, they're really bad at it.
There is plenty of evidence that TikTok is manipulating the visibility of videos on political topics sensitive to the CCP
TikTok has censored #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd, blocked a teenager discussing China’s genocide in Xinjiang, and blocked a video of Tank Man. The Guardian published TikTok guidelines that censored Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the Falun Gong. TikTok also censored the Hong Kong protests and even hid highlights of the Houston Rockets basketball team when the general manager tweeted support for the protests.
Surely they would promote those topics if they wanted to destabilize the USA or make it look bad?
Not if they’re attempting to put their thumb on the scale for the incumbent president in an election year.
I'm not sure I buy that. My understanding is that conservative-leaning voters saw the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 as dangerous riots, representing a breakdown of law and order. I would think that you would want to boost that content to present the Left as dangerous and out of control.
Chaos gets blamed on the incumbent by the public at large regardless of who’s fault it factually is.
Biden took the backlash for the chaotic Afghanistan pullout regardless of the fact that the withdraw deal was negotiated and signed by Trump.
Places with BLM protests had increased democratic vote share
If the CCP understands anything, it’s the danger of mass protests to incumbent power.
Yes, and that's an ethical issue. How is that a national security issue?
Fox news lies on national TV all the time in a way that supports an incoming President who tried to do a coup and got reelected. But they outright lie, OANN and Truth Social exist. Murdoch became a US citizen but still does the same stuff in the UK and Australia. His naturalization makes the propaganda fine because it's domestic now?
You have people not fully sold that national borders are a thing that should exist, telling them it's ok they're lied to by someone on one side of the line but not the other is not a winning argument. There's a lot of censorship on domestic platforms, Facebook has sold our data to many people, including Chinese companies, and using the term "cis' gets you moderated on Twitter while literal Nazis can post.
And most of the teens aren't watching political stuff to begin with, they're sharing memes/sounds/dances. I'm not saying censorship is fine, I'm saying it isn't unique nor related to our national security.
It took about a day before I started seeing a fully fake news headline on a fake article screenshot making up anti COVID vaccine propaganda when Facebook changed their policies lately. The report button on Tiktok at least does something.
Because China is a power actively hostile to the United States and global democracy generally. Loudly pledging support for Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and proclaiming their intent to invade and conquer Taiwan in the next decade. China’s invasion of Taiwan will spark war with the United States. If you game theory out their best chances of success for invasion, they will preemptively bomb American military bases in Japan and Guam at the same time they launch their invasion.
Nothing you are complaining about it actively supported or directed by the United States government. The Biden administration is opposed to everything you are complaining about but they didn’t go in and ban Fox News or block Musk’s ownership of Twitter because the US is a strong constitutional democracy. And China is trying to exploit our values of free speech and debate for their own malicious ends.
China has banned American social media in China for over a decade. The CCP by law has a golden controlling share on ByteDance’s board to directly assert its control. These situations are not the same.
If our strong constitutional democracy had debated it, had shared the information that multiple Senators said should be made public and wasn't actively trying to overturn the ban that they voted for on an app they've continued to use, I'd take that seriously.
We don't actually know if or how China is "trying to exploit our free speech" because that information isn't public. But lets assume they always are, at all times - their censorship of material critical of China is a problem. What amount of censorship is happening and how does that censorship "exploit" our speech and lead them to bomb our bases? Because the censorship is what you're saying is the national security issue? Everyone's saying it's bad - and sure - but we disagree on the amount of "Bad" and what the response should be to it.
Maybe the security info is really that bad, but none of that tracks with how this was passed, the responses from people coming out of the briefings, the failure to declassify and share, the continued use by politicians, the exemptions on bans on government phones for people using it as part of their job, the attempted repeal by people who voted for it, the objection to not having debate over the bill the first time, the people that voted for it saying they didn't think it would be banned from the beginning, and the long delay itself.
NPR was literally saying that now Congress understands that 170 million people use it and that small businesses rely on it for their income, which demonstrates to me that they weren't really paying attention to it before. I am not saying "woo give China all our data and don't care at all." I'm not on Rednote and don't plan to be. But I find all of this panic - combined again with the explicit racism and absolute lack of understanding about technology - incredibly unconvincing.
And while overarching data privacy is "not the same" since our data is being sold to pretty much anyone - and yeah there's a law, but it doesn't get you shut down if you break it, and I'm sincerely doubting it's hard to get through a secondary data broker anyway. And that's when it isn't just freely available online. If national security is a priority, protecting all Americans' data, not just half of them, would be a move that would also probably end up banning Tiktok in its current form but we'd come out of it with actual protections and avoided being hypocritical as a nation every time we've criticized China for controlling their citizen's access to the internet. The whole thing has been handled poorly, and still is, and that assumes there's actually some sort of significant risk, which again remains unproven.
I'm not sure that follows. Just because there's a lot of non-youth on the app doesn't mean that they're not also holding large sway over the youth. "About six-in-ten teens ages 13 to 17 (63%) say they use TikTok, including 57% who use it daily"
Sure, but 75 percent of the users of the app are not children is my point. And that's a rough estimate.
Also, the government hasn't actually shared that evidence with the public despite multiple senators saying they should share some or all of it.
Despite the "controlling" of the youth the app wasn't outright banned but was given a long lead time and they bundled the vote into an aid bill (and didn't stop using the app themselves). And now, despite this threat to national security there's a scramble to un-ban it by some of those same people. The narrative that everyone went into a briefing and came out in favor is not true. Both House members and Senators voted against that aid package.
75% not being children doesn't mean that the impact on children is not a big deal. Real anecdote: 25% of my users are from one country, but they use my company's app so heavily and the expensive features even more abnormally it's actually screwing up cost projections for us. Of TikTok's 170M US users, we don't know the breakdown of how heavily those users use the app and the demographics of that.
The government often doesn't share information that some senators think should be shared; that's not abnormal.
They didn't need to outright ban it immediately even if they could demonstrate that it had an effect on people because influence is an indirect power that doesn't need an immediate reaction. It can wait 6 months or however long it took.
I believe the ban has more to do with potential than current behavior. I'm sure that they demonstrated that the algorithm steered some political topics. I'm sure they then weighed against that China powers the app. In this thread we see that people keep mentioning Facebook and Twitter. Yes, those also influence people, but the companies and the owners reside in the West where we can arrest them and stop it if we needed to urgently. We couldn't with TikTok, so we wanted to move that to the West. China didn't want to sell (as they shouldn't). Potential, not immediate threat.
And then you’d sit there for years and not worry about the other holes in the boat? Because that’s what the US has and will continue to do.
A fix is a comprehensive privacy law that controls what information any app can gather.
Do you mean the Russian book, Foundations of Geopolitics (1997), or is there also a Chinese version of the same thing?
No, this was a Chinese strategy book released in the 2000s, covering biowarfare, information warfare, and computer warfare. It was released out to the PLA at some point and then translated.
Sure, it is a genuine crisis to those that see any dismantling of US hegemony as a bad thing (I don't). So, I understand why they're approaching it the way they are, I just share no sense of desire to protect said system's hegemony or protect our citizenry/youth from distrusting and dropping support of it. In fact, I specifically prefer more people distrust it and see our own internal information warfare the government and its corporate and media buddies wage on the public
"National security" is a magic phrase that Congress and the executive branch can use to get the judiciary to accept whatever unconstitutional bullshit they want to do. Decades of precedent of the courts allowing basically anything with "national security" as justification.
While that might be true, it's not the case here. There is nothing unconstitutional about this, both incredibly obviously, and based in the fact that a very divided SCOTUS unanimously upheld the law.
I don’t necessarily believe that the TikTok ban was unjustified. Rather, justified or not, it was always going to be upheld because of the explicit national security justification. Tangentially, I think there should be discussion about the judiciary’s essentially carte blanche approval of laws on this ground. No fan of TikTok myself.
Can you point to other SCOTUS rulings that may seem to be laws that are unconstitutional that were upheld on the grounds of national security? I am unaware of any off the top of my head.
Here's a Harvard Law Review article going over the history of national security vs. constitutionality with examples: link.
I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. For the record my use of "unconstitutional bullshit" represents my opinion.
The Patriot Act?
I'm not actually sure how many cases went up and how far in the court system. But that is a key example of a law that is only allowable because national security
The ruling is an interesting read, especially Gorsuch's concurrence: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
Disclaimer: I'm a dummy who has not studied law-- it appears to focus on the data collection aspect of it moreso than the propaganda risk:
Fixed the formatting.
Excellent. Now let's ban that and Xitter in the UK as well, given the hostility and interference of the latter's goose-stepping prick of an owner.
I expect (and hope) its being banned in the US will kill it here too. That's like 3/5 of the anglosphere knocked off the platform, aka a significant chunk of the creators who'll migrate elsewhere, probably followed by their users?
The duller among them are already migrating to Rednote, like that's somehow not even worse - the app's already popped up to replace TikTok in mobile gaming ads, which is pretty blatant.
Holy god please let's exorcise twitter from the UK.