I've never been a tiktok user, so maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that tiktok was much more effective than Reels and YouTube Shorts when it comes to bringing content that aligns with a...
Exemplary
I've never been a tiktok user, so maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that tiktok was much more effective than Reels and YouTube Shorts when it comes to bringing content that aligns with a person's interests. I'm a 35 year old boomer that has used the other two and I can speak from my own experience that, in addition to a healthy dose of slop, they bring me a bunch of right-wing/right-wing adjacent nonsense that doesn't align with any of the accounts I actively follow. I've also seen it mentioned many times that Tiktok appears to have played a fairly significant role in the pro-Palestine/anti-genocide movement. I've had many brain rot sessions via Reels and Shorts, but I've never come across anything like that, unless someone I knew shared it in their story. Writing that actually made me curious if it was just a me problem, so I looked it up and found several reddit posts about people having the same experience, along with this article and a Human Rights Watch report accusing Meta of systemic censorship of Palestine content. I dunno, food for thought.
Anyway, I guess we'll see if that stuff or other non-right political stuff makes its way to Instagram over the coming weeks. I feel pretty confident it won't be on Shorts anytime soon and I'd bet my life that it wont migrate to Twitter or Facebook. It just seems to me that, despite its faults, Tiktok at least had some sort of counterweight to the racism, misogyny, and misinformation, whereas the equally shitty but less optimized brethren don't. Maybe that's why so many people tried to jump ship to Red Note.
And while I think it's perfectly understandable why people would feel uneasy about the CCP's potential influence over Tiktok or any other popular social media app, I can't help but feel like it's still preferable (or at the very least no worse) than being stuck with the existing American-owned alternatives, especially after what we've seen from Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg over the past few months. What could they do that we haven't already seen? We've already seen outside actors instigate and exacerbate political divisions and unrest on American platforms. Misinformation from domestic and foreign sources has been and will continue to be a huge deal on American platforms. The Donald, Q, the alt-right, pizzagate, the 3 percenters, etc., all came up before TikTok was a thing. I doubt tiktok would be worse in terms of censoring or tracking American protest movements. The only thing I've heard people talk about are wild hypotheticals that are based around a direct conflict, or examples like yours which boil down to boosting content that says China isn't a nightmare dystopia. And if that's the case, then who cares? Pretty much every politician not named Tim Walz and just about every major media outlet have been priming us to hate and fear China anyway.
The supreme Court rejected the governments argument around content manipulation. The large driving force of the law, and the grounds on which it was upheld in court, was to prevent the collection...
The only thing I've heard people talk about are wild hypotheticals that are based around a direct conflict, or examples like yours which boil down to boosting content that says China isn't a nightmare dystopia.
The supreme Court rejected the governments argument around content manipulation. The large driving force of the law, and the grounds on which it was upheld in court, was to prevent the collection of data on Americans by a hostile adversary. The discussed scenarios included potential blackmail of future government officials who are currently in their teens.
Given that this is the country that sets up secret foreign police stations to police those of Chinese ethnicity like in NYC, in addition to numerous other abuses abroad, it feels like there is a difference between data being collected by Meta vs TikTok. It's also damning that the lead attorney for TikTok never disputed that the CCP could ask for the data.
All the show around housing the operations here are moot if the company still follows orders from ownership in China. And given that ByteDance has a shared services corporate model, TikTok very much is a Chinese company, unless it was completely spun out, which I haven't seen reported. And TikTok has a bad history already of leaking US data to their Chinese based platforms. This isn't a company that has demonstrated the kind of rigorous controls that could be trusted to withstand CCP pressure.
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States
Blackmailing future officials who are currently in their teens? Okay...one might argue that falls under the "wild hypotheticals" category, but that makes sense I guess. Although, doesn't that make...
Blackmailing future officials who are currently in their teens? Okay...one might argue that falls under the "wild hypotheticals" category, but that makes sense I guess. Although, doesn't that make Apple, Google, Meta, and Snapchat even more dangerous in that regard? Is there a center for dick pic studies that can give us an idea of where the most salacious stuff is sent out and received? I guess a ban could technically lower the potential for future Kompromat, but there are still plenty of ways to skin a cat in that regard. Not to mention, there's still the endless stream of breaches and brokers that can turn over data anyway if we're concerned about the ordinary citizens who make up the other 99.9% of users. I just have a really hard time buying this idea that it was the data, not the influence, that was the motive behind the ban. Kinda like how I don't think the motivation for Dobbs had anything to do with the constitution. But that's hard to prove from my living room.
Given that this is the country that sets up secret foreign police stations to police those of Chinese ethnicity like in NYC, in addition to numerous other abuses abroad, it feels like there is a difference between data being collected by Meta vs TikTok.
Well, I've got some bad news for you. Not only do we have our own massive spying apparatus, there is also a long, storied history of the United States spying on and suppressing journalists and dissidents, both in this country and abroad. Famous examples include, but are not limited to: <SNL announcer voice> Black Lives Matter, climate activists, labor leaders, anti-war protesters, Muhammad Ali, and a guy who has his own holiday tomorrow.
To borrow a phrase from our president on his final day in office, let's compare it to the alternative, not the almighty. Of course, the alternative in this situation is funneling the 130 million users to Meta, Twitter, and YouTube, or the more desired result, forcing a sale to an American group which will almost certainly have the same motivations and issues as the others in terms of data privacy and content moderation. Moreover, they will be subjected to the pressures of a Trump administration that is openly hostile to its political adversaries. As I alluded to in my first comment, we've seen what cozying up to Trump looks like in terms of content moderation (Meta) and algorithm tweaking (Twitter).
So when I think of the most important problems that are facing the United States today - stuff like healthcare, income inequality, money in politics, infrastructure, our response to climate change, and the rise of fascistic little freaks, China is not the one responsible, nor is it the main thing standing in the way. Guys like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Trump play a massive role in those problems and they're the ones who are going to inherit the users and data, and they will have their finger on the scale when it comes to the algorithm. To me, that is so much more frightening.
Go and watch the floor debate from c span or the oral arguments from the supreme Court. That is certainly a big part of the articulated concern. Unrelated, and I am well aware. If other countries...
I just have a really hard time buying this idea that it was the data, not the influence, that was the motive behind the ban.
Go and watch the floor debate from c span or the oral arguments from the supreme Court. That is certainly a big part of the articulated concern.
Well, I've got some bad news for you. Not only do we have our own massive spying apparatus, there is also a long, storied history of the United States spying on and suppressing journalists and dissidents, both in this country and abroad.
Unrelated, and I am well aware. If other countries want to block access to Facebook domestically for fear of the US government seeking access to private data, that seems fair.
The issue is that China is an adversary, not that there is some moral high ground for the US.
Of course, the alternative in this situation is funneling the 130 million users to Meta, Twitter, and YouTube, or the more desired result, forcing a sale to an American group which will almost certainly have the same motivations and issues as the others in terms of data privacy and content moderation.
Yes but they wouldn't be owned by China and as susceptible to data being taken by China or other foreign adversary for use against the national security interests of the US.
This isn't a data privacy play, or a consumer protection play. This is foreign adversary national security.
Well, it seems like we're at an impasse, but I just want to clarify my position for anyone else reading this. I don't think we should take it at face value when people say this is a national...
Well, it seems like we're at an impasse, but I just want to clarify my position for anyone else reading this.
I don't think we should take it at face value when people say this is a national security issue. It's a justification that has long been used to cover ulterior motives, like spying on or subverting activists like MLK, or the invasion of Iraq. Even if that is the case, there are consequences that could have negative effects.
We are staring down the barrel of an oligarchy run by an authoritarian strongman. I think that by handing over one of the biggest information platforms/userbases to the few who already control so much of the information we consume, we create an environment that is more dangerous to national security than anything the Chinese might do.
That was quick. I think it's perfectly fair to dislike the further concentration of platform control. It's also good to question the justifications for any action of the government to ensure it...
Well, it seems like we're at an impasse
That was quick.
I think it's perfectly fair to dislike the further concentration of platform control. It's also good to question the justifications for any action of the government to ensure it meets a necessary public interest.
However, most people in this thread are either arguing against justifications not actually officially articulated by the legislative or judicial forums that have debated this, categorically dismissing the notion of national security interests, or inventing some weaker proxy argument to debate.
Being skeptical and disagreeing on the relative merits of an issue is perfectly fine. I just think it's important that people debate the actual position put forward by the government, not heresay or offhand comments from one or two individuals.
But why are you so hung up on this? We're not arguing this in a court of law. We can look beyond the official arguments to analyze the motivations and consequences of our laws. Not doing so...
most people in this thread are either arguing against justifications not actually officially articulated by the legislative or judicial forums that have debated this
But why are you so hung up on this? We're not arguing this in a court of law. We can look beyond the official arguments to analyze the motivations and consequences of our laws. Not doing so creates such a narrow framework that you end up missing the forrest for the trees. Should we restrict our conversations about Citizens United to freedom of speech? Should we argue the technicalities of whether or not it's constitutional to get an abortion when talking about the intent and outcome of the Dobbs decision? If a Republican congressman says climate change isn't real on the house floor, should we reiterate the scientific consensus for the 50 millionth time, or can we highlight the number of times that fossil fuel companies made contributions to his campaign?
Unless of course you're saying that because you think the national security concerns are valid, and really important, and that you wholeheartedly agree with the decision. If that's the case, then, you know, we're at an impasse. Which is fine.
I just think it's important that people debate the actual position put forward by the government, not heresay or offhand comments from one or two individuals.
I'm not sure if there are other comments you're referring to, but when it comes to the flow of information being a key motivation for the ban, I think there's more out there than hearsay and offhand comments. Proponents of the bill have been making that case publicly for months. The article that I linked to in my first comment is a pretty good jumping off point with plenty of examples.
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the TikTok ban legislation, argued that the platform was manipulating young Americans against Israel. “I don’t think there’s any question that there has been a coordinated effort off these college campuses, and that you have outside paid agitators and activists ... It also highlights exactly why we included the TikTok bill in the foreign supplemental aid package because you’re seeing how these kids are being manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries to foment hate on their behalf and really create a hostile environment here in the U.S.”
I think we just aren't connecting in our discussion, which happens in a text based format. People can and should synthesize all information into their world-view, and I think there is plenty of...
I think we just aren't connecting in our discussion, which happens in a text based format.
But why are you so hung up on this? We're not arguing this in a court of law. We can look beyond the official arguments to analyze the motivations and consequences of our laws.
People can and should synthesize all information into their world-view, and I think there is plenty of room for incorporation of cultural, informal, press statements, and other sources to inform where we land on these things. However, when someone seems surprised with a scenario that was argued several times during oral arguments in the supreme court on the subject, such as a the blackmail of future government officials, and describes it as a wild hypothetical, then it seems like maybe there is an opportunity to incorporate more of that official position into ones review, if only to better know what to argue against.
To your article, I actually did read it and responded to a different commenter who has similar articles. I think there is certainly a good case that the war in the middle east made it an easier bill to pass because of the protests. But the effort to ban the platform started years ago. I would say it really started with the first bans of the app from government computers, and just evolved from there, escalating with the executive order under the first trump presidency.
If a Republican congressman says climate change isn't real on the house floor, should we reiterate the scientific consensus for the 50 millionth time, or can we highlight the number of times that fossil fuel companies made contributions to his campaign?
I'm not sure I see how this is related to me saying that if we want to debate the validity of the governments argument on TikTok then we should make sure we understand what their official position is. I never made any statement about limiting the source of information made in an argument against the ban, nor do I see how it is like climate deniers.
If you think we are at an impasse, or simply don't want to discuss, that is fine. But the point of making comments here is to share ideas. You don't have to reply if you aren't interested in an exchange, or feel two positions are simply not worth contrasting. However, replying does open up the door to future responses, and so on. Viewing that as being hung up on something is perhaps not in keeping with the spirit of the site.
Sorry, I'm getting to this late because I've been offline for a while. It's not that I'm not interested in an exchange, it's just that I don't think there is much else either of us can say without...
Sorry, I'm getting to this late because I've been offline for a while.
It's not that I'm not interested in an exchange, it's just that I don't think there is much else either of us can say without us just talking past each other. I think we've both made our positions clear and that we simply disagree with each other. Going back and forth over with each other doesn't add anything of value.
It seems like you're focused on the arguments made in front of the supreme court, while I'm focused on the motivations behind the bill that led to the case and what it potentially means for us going forward. As I tried to make clear in my examples, the legal arguments presented to the court are not always reflective of the motivations behind them, like in the Citizens United or Dobbs cases. Same thing goes for arguments made in Congress, which is why I used the climate denier example.
I'm open to data from any source. If you read the other exchanges generated by my first reply to your comment you would see that some of this had already been discussed by the time you replied to...
It seems like you're focused on the arguments made in front of the supreme court, while I'm focused on the motivations behind the bill that led to the case and what it potentially means for us going forward.
I'm open to data from any source. If you read the other exchanges generated by my first reply to your comment you would see that some of this had already been discussed by the time you replied to me. In particular I said I'm quite sure that many lawmakers had many different motivations for voting to support the ban, ranging from prevailing treatment of the war in the middle east, to fear of content manipulation. Frankly, TikTok putting a banner on users video feeds giving them the contact info for their individual house reps was possibly the worst thing they could have done on that point.
However, for years there have been staffers pushing for this ban that were motivated by national security concerns, and the official government position at this point is what I stated above.
But frankly, re-reading the thread and in particular your first reply to me, doesn't make me think you are sincere in wanting to discuss, given comments like:
Well, I've got some bad news for you.
As well as the digression regarding US behavior, healthcare, etc, which is unrelated to the details of this situation and is simply throwing up proxy arguments.
So I respect that you think the motivation for the bill was about platform influence. I think that helped get many legislators to yes more quickly. But that isn't the entire story nor is every argument in support of it a wild hypothetical from random people on the Internet, as you started in your reply to me.
It's not a proxy argument. It's my actual argument. Those are examples to illustrate my point. I don't know how many different ways I can say it - we are talking about different things. It seems...
As well as the digression regarding US behavior, healthcare, etc, which is unrelated to the details of this situation and is simply throwing up proxy arguments.
It's not a proxy argument. It's my actual argument. Those are examples to illustrate my point. I don't know how many different ways I can say it - we are talking about different things. It seems like you've misunderstood everything I've said.
The key is, it is effectively a ban of censorship because, spoiler alert- there are many, many other Chinese apps can build surveillance profiles - maybe not quite as much as TikTok, but enough....
The key is, it is effectively a ban of censorship because, spoiler alert- there are many, many other Chinese apps can build surveillance profiles - maybe not quite as much as TikTok, but enough. None of them are banned. People are still going to play League of Legends, Genshin Impact, et cetera. So what's the difference?
Pure speculation without supporting data. If you want to compare and contrast you need to pick one so we can see if there is a difference that makes a difference. Off the top of my head, I would...
So, yes, it's on solid legal footing because of the data collection aspect, but it's merely an excuse.
Pure speculation without supporting data.
If you want to compare and contrast you need to pick one so we can see if there is a difference that makes a difference. Off the top of my head, I would look at scope, e.g. US player count, data collection practices, differences in privacy policy, weird behavior around obfuscated code, and past incidents of leaking sensitive data.
Has league of Legends been caught leaking US drivers licenses, SSN's, and alleged CSAM to Chinese platforms?
If a close look at these other companies shows they have the same concerning patterns of data collection, leaking, and obfuscation, then it seems as much as argument to force divestiture on them as well, as much as it is an argument against the TikTok ban.
Interesting how you talk about supporting data while making this claim: I can find a driver license leak from the Israeli company they used for verification (also used by Uber, Lyft, and many...
Interesting how you talk about supporting data while making this claim:
Has league of Legends been caught leaking US drivers licenses, SSN's, and alleged CSAM to Chinese platforms?
I can find a driver license leak from the Israeli company they used for verification (also used by Uber, Lyft, and many others) not to "Chinese platforms" and nothing about SSNs.
If a close look at these other companies shows they have the same concerning patterns of data collection, leaking, and obfuscation, then it seems as much as argument to force divestiture on them as well, as much as it is an argument against the TikTok ban.
Well, yes, that's my point. Treatment should be consistent. I am arguing that the treatment is inconsistent and inspired in part by free speech suppression.
That's a question, not a claim. Nor is it rhetorical. Those are all things that TikTok has done, which I supported with a link above. You mentioned League of Legends and others are just like...
Interesting how you talk about supporting data while making this claim:
That's a question, not a claim. Nor is it rhetorical. Those are all things that TikTok has done, which I supported with a link above. You mentioned League of Legends and others are just like TikTok. I asked if they had these same issues.
I can find a driver license leak from the Israeli company they used for verification (also used by Uber, Lyft, and many others) not to "Chinese platforms" and nothing about SSNs.
Are you talking about league of Legends? If so, what's the point? That it is different from the TikTok situation? Because that was my point.
Well, yes, that's my point. Treatment should be consistent. I am arguing that the treatment is inconsistent and inspired in part by free speech suppression.
What data do you have to support or corroborate the claim that free speech suppression is the goal? What data do you have that there isn't a compelling public interest rooted in national security?
Perhaps other companies aren't being targeted because the scale and depth of data harvesting by TikTok, and the level of data leakage, truly is unique from other cases.
Apologies. I didn't see you'd linked your source earlier. I meant the claim that TikTok was leaking things, which you have supported with an NYT article. Senator:...
Apologies. I didn't see you'd linked your source earlier. I meant the claim that TikTok was leaking things, which you have supported with an NYT article.
What data do you have to support or corroborate the claim that free speech suppression is the goal?
What data do you have that there isn't a compelling public interest rooted in national security? Perhaps other companies aren't being targeted because the scale and depth of data harvesting by TikTok, and the level of data leakage, truly is unique from other cases.
Honestly, fair. Perhaps "excuse" was too dismissive of the role national security concerns plays in this. What I will not deny is that this ban was at least in part motivated by censorship, especially on the Republican side of the aisle.
I read through the links, and I'm sure there are some lawmakers who dislike TikTok for many reasons, including their perceptions of it serving up biased information on the Israel Hamas war. Your...
I read through the links, and I'm sure there are some lawmakers who dislike TikTok for many reasons, including their perceptions of it serving up biased information on the Israel Hamas war. Your links show that just fine.
That doesn't make it the explanatory reason for why national security staffers pushed this effort for years, starting before the war in the middle east. Additionally, it is now Trump who is looking for a way to create an extension for the sale of the platform, a Republican.
So I agree that the reasons for individual lawmakers is varied, and includes reasons I would disagree with. But those bad justifications don't undo the national security argument or explain the past decisions of TikTok and the corporate structure of ByteDance.
I am an occasional Tik tok user. And yeah it’s not even close. With shorts and reels it’s much easier to just stop. But Tik tok just gives you that “one more video” that’s always what you want to...
I've never been a tiktok user, so maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that tiktok was much more effective than Reels and YouTube Shorts when it comes to bringing content that aligns with a person's interests
I am an occasional Tik tok user. And yeah it’s not even close. With shorts and reels it’s much easier to just stop. But Tik tok just gives you that “one more video” that’s always what you want to see. Either funny, informative, weird, whatever.
I’ve had moments where I opened Tik tok stoned and i felt like it’s just magically showing me exactly the weird stuff I wanted to see.
I don’t know what it is, but it’s seriously addictive. So much so that I have to resort to apps that block it. I think I didn’t use it in a couple of months again. But whenever I do it’s just captivating
This is excatly why I’ve never downloaded it. I mean even the poor algos in other places sometimes sucked me in way too long so I’m not tempting fate here.
This is excatly why I’ve never downloaded it. I mean even the poor algos in other places sometimes sucked me in way too long so I’m not tempting fate here.
Fwiw there's plenty of "fuck this" from Tiktok users in regards to the CEO and the "Trump saved the app" message that went up today. Much like creators who reluctantly said IG and YT were the only...
A side note, I find it hilarious that Tiktok users on the left are decrying what will likely be a temporary suspension of the app (which is once again accessible as of this comment) aren't more suspicious of the fact that this whole thing reeks of Bytedance teeing itself up to be 'saved by Trump' and as such ingratiating themselves with that giant piece of shit. Like if you're going to shit on Musk and Zuck for gurgling those geriatric balls and avoid their platforms, shouldn't you also be doing that for Bytedance once it goes live again on Monday?
Fwiw there's plenty of "fuck this" from Tiktok users in regards to the CEO and the "Trump saved the app" message that went up today. Much like creators who reluctantly said IG and YT were the only real options for them monetarily much as they dislike Meta. People pissed at TT are more focused on the mass destruction of those spaces left people without alternatives and thus wanting those spaces.
I should clarify, I'm not saying that it's immune from those things, just that it appears to have more of the "less bad" or even "not bad" stuff, whereas the others don't and have a similar...
Just because something didn't exist when bad things happened doesn't mean that it's immune from repeating those same mistakes. We can see just how effective Tiktok was in spreading COVID conspiracies and violent, manosphere misogyny.
I should clarify, I'm not saying that it's immune from those things, just that it appears to have more of the "less bad" or even "not bad" stuff, whereas the others don't and have a similar history of spreading misinformation and hate to gullible audiences.
All these places are cesspools and imo should be treated as domestic threats to society and regulated as such, but you know, mUh FrEeDoM uH SpEeCh: we have the mechanisms, just zero will to do this for US companies.
Agreed, which is why I find myself advocating for what I see as the <gulp> lesser of two evils. Even if short-form content and social media were to disappear tomorrow, we still have plenty of other sources of misinformation and a population that lacks the tools to recognize it. It's a systemic issue that can't be fixed without massive changes to education and social policy.
the strength and effectiveness of the algorithm concerns me.
Yeah, that's why I think a forced sale to an American company/group/individual has the potential to be the worst case scenario.
I find it hilarious that Tiktok users on the left are decrying what will likely be a temporary suspension of the app (which is once again accessible as of this comment) aren't more suspicious of the fact that this whole thing reeks of Bytedance teeing itself up to be 'saved by Trump' and as such ingratiating themselves with that giant piece of shit. Like if you're going to shit on Musk and Zuck for gurgling those geriatric balls and avoid their platforms, shouldn't you also be doing that for Bytedance once it goes live again on Monday?
Can't really speak to the left-wing tiktok users, but I get you there. I also think it's a sad but kinda funny move from the Biden administration to dish out one final layup for Trump. But if nothing else, it'll be interesting to see the right-wing media machine do gymnastics trying to applaud that move.
Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now
A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
In the meantime, you can still log in to download your data.
They’re pretty doubled down on the president intervention right now, anyone think it’s going to be longer than a week?
Is this maybe why they shut it down a bit early? To let people get all pissed off before the inauguration in hopes that this gets done ASAP by Trump before he gets distracted with other more...
Is this maybe why they shut it down a bit early? To let people get all pissed off before the inauguration in hopes that this gets done ASAP by Trump before he gets distracted with other more important things.
A year ago I was gonna write about TikTok’s influence on the movie industry. I don’t think there’s been social media as culturally influential as TikTok was. Music, Film, and Books were all...
A year ago I was gonna write about TikTok’s influence on the movie industry.
I don’t think there’s been social media as culturally influential as TikTok was. Music, Film, and Books were all influenced by TikTok. Songs were written for it, movies were made popular through it, and Barnes and Nobles saw a resurgence because of them. It will be interesting what happens now, if the ban is indeed permanent.
B&N got sold around the time Booktok was getting off the ground. In truth the new ownership actually made significant changes that revitalized the store. One of those though was allow local stores...
B&N got sold around the time Booktok was getting off the ground. In truth the new ownership actually made significant changes that revitalized the store. One of those though was allow local stores to set their own displays. There's a pivot to seeing more "book tok favorites" and romantasy spicy books and the like. It also made books quick hits that people would want to run out and buy - but then these books would stay popular rather than disappearing entirely.
I also remember seeing more videos talking about people going to the bookstore rather than ordering online - big readers being given 60 seconds to grab whatever they wanted as their birthday present and filling up more than a basket "supermarket sweep" style - I even had friends recreate that one (on snap to their friends) and have had my partner offer me the same.
Booktok definitely pushed reading - I have saved videos of "if you like X but with A, B C" books - and I bought a number of indie authors' work because of it. Booktok probably helped BN, which is why many catered their displays toward it, but I don't think it deserves all the credit for "saving" BN by any means.
It's quite fun and for the husbands/boyfriends who were doing it, it was not a cheap present either. But my friend loved seeing his fiancée happy and that's the point!
It's quite fun and for the husbands/boyfriends who were doing it, it was not a cheap present either. But my friend loved seeing his fiancée happy and that's the point!
TikTok takes itself down in a period of non-enforcement and shouts "Why did you do that?" The ban was contingent on them divesting from their Chinese owner, which there did not seem to be an...
TikTok takes itself down in a period of non-enforcement and shouts "Why did you do that?"
The ban was contingent on them divesting from their Chinese owner, which there did not seem to be an earnest effort to do. I don't really feel bad for the company that simply decided not to comply with what was frankly a rather simple condition. I won't be surprised if the Trump administration, which vehemently pushed for the ban five years ago, flipped and saved it for political points.
I mean, "divest your company" is a pretty extreme condition. It's not like, "pay a fine" or something. If the owners would rather kill the app in the US than sell their company, it seems...
I mean, "divest your company" is a pretty extreme condition. It's not like, "pay a fine" or something. If the owners would rather kill the app in the US than sell their company, it seems reasonable to me.
That'd be like if the government forced you to sell your house - I wouldn't call that a "simple condition".
You kinda got me there, the only next step would be forced dismantling which isn't a goal. I sort of figured there would be an easy enough time selling to somebody, either a major company or an...
You kinda got me there, the only next step would be forced dismantling which isn't a goal. I sort of figured there would be an easy enough time selling to somebody, either a major company or an interested billionaire, while keeping the company operating more or less identically.
They've correctly surmised that nobody actually wants to be blamed for taking tiktok down, and drawing as much attention as possible puts pressure on legislators to undo it somehow. When (not if)...
They've correctly surmised that nobody actually wants to be blamed for taking tiktok down, and drawing as much attention as possible puts pressure on legislators to undo it somehow. When (not if) it works, they will have successfully navigated the situation without being taken down or made to divest.
It's illegal in China to sell algorithms. They couldn't "divest" they would have had to sell completely. And there was no guarantee that the apps being hosted wouldn't still have resulted in a...
It's illegal in China to sell algorithms. They couldn't "divest" they would have had to sell completely.
And there was no guarantee that the apps being hosted wouldn't still have resulted in a risk of consequences due to the statute of limitations.
What? Chinese companies absolutely can sell algorithms, including to other countries. In some cases they may be subject to more CCP scrutiny, but there's plenty of precedent for Chinese companies...
It's illegal in China to sell algorithms. They couldn't "divest" they would have had to sell completely.
What? Chinese companies absolutely can sell algorithms, including to other countries. In some cases they may be subject to more CCP scrutiny, but there's plenty of precedent for Chinese companies selling IP to foreign companies.
Apologies, I was overbroad. it requires government approval to export because it's a restricted tech. It's illegal without that approval and that's independent of the "golden share" aspect.
Apologies, I was overbroad. it requires government approval to export because it's a restricted tech. It's illegal without that approval and that's independent of the "golden share" aspect.
This is currently a voluntary shut down to avoid paying $5k per user per day. They weren't shut down forcibly by the US government, they made themselves unavailable.
This is currently a voluntary shut down to avoid paying $5k per user per day. They weren't shut down forcibly by the US government, they made themselves unavailable.
Are you certain their web hosts weren't taking them offline? Oracle and the app stores didn't seem inclined to risk the $5k per user per day who they help access it. Not 5k per day. Why do you...
Are you certain their web hosts weren't taking them offline? Oracle and the app stores didn't seem inclined to risk the $5k per userper day who they help access it. Not 5k per day.
Aside from the fact that it's now back up less than 12 hours later? The site was still up, serving content, just not the original service. It served the message people have been posting about, not...
Aside from the fact that it's now back up less than 12 hours later?
The site was still up, serving content, just not the original service. It served the message people have been posting about, not a 404. Which means it redirected, wasn't just shut down. Service providers don't tend to just turn the content off they host, and the ban wouldn't have affected them, just TikTok, the company.
That's not factually correct. The law targeted the hosts too, including app stores and Oracle. Allegedly the reassurance that they wouldn't be fined was what was required to get it back up. That...
That's not factually correct. The law targeted the hosts too, including app stores and Oracle. Allegedly the reassurance that they wouldn't be fined was what was required to get it back up. That whole thing is suspicious, but read the original law.
Been posting a while about TikTok on here, and just about 6 minutes ago, my mom told me she couldn't use TikTok. The question is, will Trump actually push to get it temporarily unbanned when he...
Been posting a while about TikTok on here, and just about 6 minutes ago, my mom told me she couldn't use TikTok.
I do video production and I'm so fucking glad Capcut is gone. I can't tell you how often I had people tell me "Oh, I did this with Capcut." and I said "What's the copyright status on the song...
I do video production and I'm so fucking glad Capcut is gone. I can't tell you how often I had people tell me "Oh, I did this with Capcut." and I said "What's the copyright status on the song used?" and get crickets. I send you out to the field with a Canon C100, a laptop with Creative Cloud and library of music and effects we've already paid for and I get TikTok videos I can't release now?
I was curious whether this could lead to other popular Chinese apps like Genshin Impact being banned, so I read the law. Hilariously, it calls out Tiktok and ByteDance by name. No other companies...
I was curious whether this could lead to other popular Chinese apps like Genshin Impact being banned, so I read the law. Hilariously, it calls out Tiktok and ByteDance by name. No other companies are on the chopping block right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's attorney general uses this law as leverage when negotiating with Chinese companies.
It also helps explain why they haven't looked at selling to another Chinese company (sorta like Grindr did). The bill basically says that's insufficient to avoid getting banned.
Relevant legal text
FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok;
(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity
identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii),
or (iii); or
(B) a covered company that—
(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
(I) a public notice proposing such determina-
tion; and
(II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
Eh, they could use this to enforce a ban on TotallyNotTikTok from any company cooperating with a US adversary per this law. The stated national security concerns are adequately addressed by this law.
Eh, they could use this to enforce a ban on TotallyNotTikTok from any company cooperating with a US adversary per this law. The stated national security concerns are adequately addressed by this law.
I'm not sure why, but it's also not working for me. I'm in Sweden on a phone that I bought in Sweden. I used to live in the US but I haven't been there for over a year.
I'm not sure why, but it's also not working for me. I'm in Sweden on a phone that I bought in Sweden. I used to live in the US but I haven't been there for over a year.
Probably. On iOS, you can make a new Apple ID with a foreign billing address and temporarily install apps from another country. You only need a valid payment method to install paid apps, so you...
Probably. On iOS, you can make a new Apple ID with a foreign billing address and temporarily install apps from another country. You only need a valid payment method to install paid apps, so you can just pick a random address. My UK Apple ID is billed to the House of Commons. I don’t know how it works on the android side, but might be worth trying.
Right now VPN's don't work as they apparently tag your account based on when you log in originally. Very possible that's hard to get reset, as of course otherwise everyone would be doing so.
Right now VPN's don't work as they apparently tag your account based on when you log in originally. Very possible that's hard to get reset, as of course otherwise everyone would be doing so.
I am so sorry I know this is not the best place for this not is it a really productive comment but: who cares. I just want healthcare, food that isn't filled with shit, a nice job and a planet...
I am so sorry I know this is not the best place for this not is it a really productive comment but: who cares. I just want healthcare, food that isn't filled with shit, a nice job and a planet that isn't going to burn. Like this is what leadership decides to focus on? A stupid fucking app. Could we please do something productive?
Please don't say anything about national security for the love of God. I work in security I have been getting TLP Green briefing on Rednote all week. I know.
You're acting like Congress is working 24/7 to ban this. They passed a law 180 days ago. Congress can pass multiple laws. People actually do have the capacity to work on multiple things within the...
You're acting like Congress is working 24/7 to ban this. They passed a law 180 days ago. Congress can pass multiple laws. People actually do have the capacity to work on multiple things within the same year.
Well unless the laws are for universal healthcare, bolstering the FDA/EPA, doing anything about climate change, or improving working conditions (I'll give Biden half points on that at least), then...
Well unless the laws are for universal healthcare, bolstering the FDA/EPA, doing anything about climate change, or improving working conditions (I'll give Biden half points on that at least), then it seems to be very hard for the government to do anything.
Uh while they can pass multiple laws, the actual process of getting a law passed is, to say the least, arduous. And so yes there's very much a limit on how much can be done in a congressional...
Uh while they can pass multiple laws, the actual process of getting a law passed is, to say the least, arduous. And so yes there's very much a limit on how much can be done in a congressional session, and a lot of potential laws/bills/etc die due to a lack of attention.
There were 274 public laws enacted in the 118th Congress. 77 of them were fluff laws giving federal facilities names, but that leaves 197 actual laws enacted. Getting a law passed can be arduous,...
There were 274 public laws enacted in the 118th Congress. 77 of them were fluff laws giving federal facilities names, but that leaves 197 actual laws enacted. Getting a law passed can be arduous, but there are 535 people whose job is to pass them, plus ~16,000 staffers whose job is to assist.
Everything and everybody on TikTok can move to another platform anyway, it's not that big a deal at the end of the day. It'll change some individuals livelihoods, but that was also always the risk...
Everything and everybody on TikTok can move to another platform anyway, it's not that big a deal at the end of the day. It'll change some individuals livelihoods, but that was also always the risk when they became content creators tied to a specific platform.
I've never been a tiktok user, so maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that tiktok was much more effective than Reels and YouTube Shorts when it comes to bringing content that aligns with a person's interests. I'm a 35 year old boomer that has used the other two and I can speak from my own experience that, in addition to a healthy dose of slop, they bring me a bunch of right-wing/right-wing adjacent nonsense that doesn't align with any of the accounts I actively follow. I've also seen it mentioned many times that Tiktok appears to have played a fairly significant role in the pro-Palestine/anti-genocide movement. I've had many brain rot sessions via Reels and Shorts, but I've never come across anything like that, unless someone I knew shared it in their story. Writing that actually made me curious if it was just a me problem, so I looked it up and found several reddit posts about people having the same experience, along with this article and a Human Rights Watch report accusing Meta of systemic censorship of Palestine content. I dunno, food for thought.
Anyway, I guess we'll see if that stuff or other non-right political stuff makes its way to Instagram over the coming weeks. I feel pretty confident it won't be on Shorts anytime soon and I'd bet my life that it wont migrate to Twitter or Facebook. It just seems to me that, despite its faults, Tiktok at least had some sort of counterweight to the racism, misogyny, and misinformation, whereas the equally shitty but less optimized brethren don't. Maybe that's why so many people tried to jump ship to Red Note.
And while I think it's perfectly understandable why people would feel uneasy about the CCP's potential influence over Tiktok or any other popular social media app, I can't help but feel like it's still preferable (or at the very least no worse) than being stuck with the existing American-owned alternatives, especially after what we've seen from Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg over the past few months. What could they do that we haven't already seen? We've already seen outside actors instigate and exacerbate political divisions and unrest on American platforms. Misinformation from domestic and foreign sources has been and will continue to be a huge deal on American platforms. The Donald, Q, the alt-right, pizzagate, the 3 percenters, etc., all came up before TikTok was a thing. I doubt tiktok would be worse in terms of censoring or tracking American protest movements. The only thing I've heard people talk about are wild hypotheticals that are based around a direct conflict, or examples like yours which boil down to boosting content that says China isn't a nightmare dystopia. And if that's the case, then who cares? Pretty much every politician not named Tim Walz and just about every major media outlet have been priming us to hate and fear China anyway.
The supreme Court rejected the governments argument around content manipulation. The large driving force of the law, and the grounds on which it was upheld in court, was to prevent the collection of data on Americans by a hostile adversary. The discussed scenarios included potential blackmail of future government officials who are currently in their teens.
Given that this is the country that sets up secret foreign police stations to police those of Chinese ethnicity like in NYC, in addition to numerous other abuses abroad, it feels like there is a difference between data being collected by Meta vs TikTok. It's also damning that the lead attorney for TikTok never disputed that the CCP could ask for the data.
All the show around housing the operations here are moot if the company still follows orders from ownership in China. And given that ByteDance has a shared services corporate model, TikTok very much is a Chinese company, unless it was completely spun out, which I haven't seen reported. And TikTok has a bad history already of leaking US data to their Chinese based platforms. This isn't a company that has demonstrated the kind of rigorous controls that could be trusted to withstand CCP pressure.
The law also only bans ownership by foreign adversaries:
Those adversaries are defined as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela
China is a dangerous actor if you cross it. Treating the CCP like the threat they are seems reasonable in a national security context.
Blackmailing future officials who are currently in their teens? Okay...one might argue that falls under the "wild hypotheticals" category, but that makes sense I guess. Although, doesn't that make Apple, Google, Meta, and Snapchat even more dangerous in that regard? Is there a center for dick pic studies that can give us an idea of where the most salacious stuff is sent out and received? I guess a ban could technically lower the potential for future Kompromat, but there are still plenty of ways to skin a cat in that regard. Not to mention, there's still the endless stream of breaches and brokers that can turn over data anyway if we're concerned about the ordinary citizens who make up the other 99.9% of users. I just have a really hard time buying this idea that it was the data, not the influence, that was the motive behind the ban. Kinda like how I don't think the motivation for Dobbs had anything to do with the constitution. But that's hard to prove from my living room.
Well, I've got some bad news for you. Not only do we have our own massive spying apparatus, there is also a long, storied history of the United States spying on and suppressing journalists and dissidents, both in this country and abroad. Famous examples include, but are not limited to: <SNL announcer voice> Black Lives Matter, climate activists, labor leaders, anti-war protesters, Muhammad Ali, and a guy who has his own holiday tomorrow.
To borrow a phrase from our president on his final day in office, let's compare it to the alternative, not the almighty. Of course, the alternative in this situation is funneling the 130 million users to Meta, Twitter, and YouTube, or the more desired result, forcing a sale to an American group which will almost certainly have the same motivations and issues as the others in terms of data privacy and content moderation. Moreover, they will be subjected to the pressures of a Trump administration that is openly hostile to its political adversaries. As I alluded to in my first comment, we've seen what cozying up to Trump looks like in terms of content moderation (Meta) and algorithm tweaking (Twitter).
So when I think of the most important problems that are facing the United States today - stuff like healthcare, income inequality, money in politics, infrastructure, our response to climate change, and the rise of fascistic little freaks, China is not the one responsible, nor is it the main thing standing in the way. Guys like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Trump play a massive role in those problems and they're the ones who are going to inherit the users and data, and they will have their finger on the scale when it comes to the algorithm. To me, that is so much more frightening.
Go and watch the floor debate from c span or the oral arguments from the supreme Court. That is certainly a big part of the articulated concern.
Unrelated, and I am well aware. If other countries want to block access to Facebook domestically for fear of the US government seeking access to private data, that seems fair.
The issue is that China is an adversary, not that there is some moral high ground for the US.
Yes but they wouldn't be owned by China and as susceptible to data being taken by China or other foreign adversary for use against the national security interests of the US.
This isn't a data privacy play, or a consumer protection play. This is foreign adversary national security.
Well, it seems like we're at an impasse, but I just want to clarify my position for anyone else reading this.
I don't think we should take it at face value when people say this is a national security issue. It's a justification that has long been used to cover ulterior motives, like spying on or subverting activists like MLK, or the invasion of Iraq. Even if that is the case, there are consequences that could have negative effects.
We are staring down the barrel of an oligarchy run by an authoritarian strongman. I think that by handing over one of the biggest information platforms/userbases to the few who already control so much of the information we consume, we create an environment that is more dangerous to national security than anything the Chinese might do.
That was quick.
I think it's perfectly fair to dislike the further concentration of platform control. It's also good to question the justifications for any action of the government to ensure it meets a necessary public interest.
However, most people in this thread are either arguing against justifications not actually officially articulated by the legislative or judicial forums that have debated this, categorically dismissing the notion of national security interests, or inventing some weaker proxy argument to debate.
Being skeptical and disagreeing on the relative merits of an issue is perfectly fine. I just think it's important that people debate the actual position put forward by the government, not heresay or offhand comments from one or two individuals.
But why are you so hung up on this? We're not arguing this in a court of law. We can look beyond the official arguments to analyze the motivations and consequences of our laws. Not doing so creates such a narrow framework that you end up missing the forrest for the trees. Should we restrict our conversations about Citizens United to freedom of speech? Should we argue the technicalities of whether or not it's constitutional to get an abortion when talking about the intent and outcome of the Dobbs decision? If a Republican congressman says climate change isn't real on the house floor, should we reiterate the scientific consensus for the 50 millionth time, or can we highlight the number of times that fossil fuel companies made contributions to his campaign?
Unless of course you're saying that because you think the national security concerns are valid, and really important, and that you wholeheartedly agree with the decision. If that's the case, then, you know, we're at an impasse. Which is fine.
I'm not sure if there are other comments you're referring to, but when it comes to the flow of information being a key motivation for the ban, I think there's more out there than hearsay and offhand comments. Proponents of the bill have been making that case publicly for months. The article that I linked to in my first comment is a pretty good jumping off point with plenty of examples.
I think we just aren't connecting in our discussion, which happens in a text based format.
People can and should synthesize all information into their world-view, and I think there is plenty of room for incorporation of cultural, informal, press statements, and other sources to inform where we land on these things. However, when someone seems surprised with a scenario that was argued several times during oral arguments in the supreme court on the subject, such as a the blackmail of future government officials, and describes it as a wild hypothetical, then it seems like maybe there is an opportunity to incorporate more of that official position into ones review, if only to better know what to argue against.
To your article, I actually did read it and responded to a different commenter who has similar articles. I think there is certainly a good case that the war in the middle east made it an easier bill to pass because of the protests. But the effort to ban the platform started years ago. I would say it really started with the first bans of the app from government computers, and just evolved from there, escalating with the executive order under the first trump presidency.
I'm not sure I see how this is related to me saying that if we want to debate the validity of the governments argument on TikTok then we should make sure we understand what their official position is. I never made any statement about limiting the source of information made in an argument against the ban, nor do I see how it is like climate deniers.
If you think we are at an impasse, or simply don't want to discuss, that is fine. But the point of making comments here is to share ideas. You don't have to reply if you aren't interested in an exchange, or feel two positions are simply not worth contrasting. However, replying does open up the door to future responses, and so on. Viewing that as being hung up on something is perhaps not in keeping with the spirit of the site.
Sorry, I'm getting to this late because I've been offline for a while.
It's not that I'm not interested in an exchange, it's just that I don't think there is much else either of us can say without us just talking past each other. I think we've both made our positions clear and that we simply disagree with each other. Going back and forth over with each other doesn't add anything of value.
It seems like you're focused on the arguments made in front of the supreme court, while I'm focused on the motivations behind the bill that led to the case and what it potentially means for us going forward. As I tried to make clear in my examples, the legal arguments presented to the court are not always reflective of the motivations behind them, like in the Citizens United or Dobbs cases. Same thing goes for arguments made in Congress, which is why I used the climate denier example.
I'm open to data from any source. If you read the other exchanges generated by my first reply to your comment you would see that some of this had already been discussed by the time you replied to me. In particular I said I'm quite sure that many lawmakers had many different motivations for voting to support the ban, ranging from prevailing treatment of the war in the middle east, to fear of content manipulation. Frankly, TikTok putting a banner on users video feeds giving them the contact info for their individual house reps was possibly the worst thing they could have done on that point.
However, for years there have been staffers pushing for this ban that were motivated by national security concerns, and the official government position at this point is what I stated above.
But frankly, re-reading the thread and in particular your first reply to me, doesn't make me think you are sincere in wanting to discuss, given comments like:
As well as the digression regarding US behavior, healthcare, etc, which is unrelated to the details of this situation and is simply throwing up proxy arguments.
So I respect that you think the motivation for the bill was about platform influence. I think that helped get many legislators to yes more quickly. But that isn't the entire story nor is every argument in support of it a wild hypothetical from random people on the Internet, as you started in your reply to me.
It's not a proxy argument. It's my actual argument. Those are examples to illustrate my point. I don't know how many different ways I can say it - we are talking about different things. It seems like you've misunderstood everything I've said.
The key is, it is effectively a ban of censorship because, spoiler alert- there are many, many other Chinese apps can build surveillance profiles - maybe not quite as much as TikTok, but enough. None of them are banned. People are still going to play League of Legends, Genshin Impact, et cetera. So what's the difference?
Well… TikTok hasn't been promoting views the government agrees with. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/israel-palestine-hawley-tiktok-war-hamas-ban-josh-rcna124013
So, yes, it's on solid legal footing because of the data collection aspect, but it's merely an excuse.
Pure speculation without supporting data.
If you want to compare and contrast you need to pick one so we can see if there is a difference that makes a difference. Off the top of my head, I would look at scope, e.g. US player count, data collection practices, differences in privacy policy, weird behavior around obfuscated code, and past incidents of leaking sensitive data.
Has league of Legends been caught leaking US drivers licenses, SSN's, and alleged CSAM to Chinese platforms?
If a close look at these other companies shows they have the same concerning patterns of data collection, leaking, and obfuscation, then it seems as much as argument to force divestiture on them as well, as much as it is an argument against the TikTok ban.
Interesting how you talk about supporting data while making this claim:
I can find a driver license leak from the Israeli company they used for verification (also used by Uber, Lyft, and many others) not to "Chinese platforms" and nothing about SSNs.
Well, yes, that's my point. Treatment should be consistent. I am arguing that the treatment is inconsistent and inspired in part by free speech suppression.
That's a question, not a claim. Nor is it rhetorical. Those are all things that TikTok has done, which I supported with a link above. You mentioned League of Legends and others are just like TikTok. I asked if they had these same issues.
Are you talking about league of Legends? If so, what's the point? That it is different from the TikTok situation? Because that was my point.
What data do you have to support or corroborate the claim that free speech suppression is the goal? What data do you have that there isn't a compelling public interest rooted in national security?
Perhaps other companies aren't being targeted because the scale and depth of data harvesting by TikTok, and the level of data leakage, truly is unique from other cases.
Apologies. I didn't see you'd linked your source earlier. I meant the claim that TikTok was leaking things, which you have supported with an NYT article.
Senator: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849
Senator: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senator-romney-antony-blinken-tiktok-ban-israel-palestinian-content
Senator: https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1717505662601609401
(Former?) Congressman: https://www.thefp.com/p/tik-tok-young-americans-hamas-mike-gallag
Honestly, fair. Perhaps "excuse" was too dismissive of the role national security concerns plays in this. What I will not deny is that this ban was at least in part motivated by censorship, especially on the Republican side of the aisle.
I read through the links, and I'm sure there are some lawmakers who dislike TikTok for many reasons, including their perceptions of it serving up biased information on the Israel Hamas war. Your links show that just fine.
That doesn't make it the explanatory reason for why national security staffers pushed this effort for years, starting before the war in the middle east. Additionally, it is now Trump who is looking for a way to create an extension for the sale of the platform, a Republican.
So I agree that the reasons for individual lawmakers is varied, and includes reasons I would disagree with. But those bad justifications don't undo the national security argument or explain the past decisions of TikTok and the corporate structure of ByteDance.
Cheers!
I am an occasional Tik tok user. And yeah it’s not even close. With shorts and reels it’s much easier to just stop. But Tik tok just gives you that “one more video” that’s always what you want to see. Either funny, informative, weird, whatever.
I’ve had moments where I opened Tik tok stoned and i felt like it’s just magically showing me exactly the weird stuff I wanted to see.
I don’t know what it is, but it’s seriously addictive. So much so that I have to resort to apps that block it. I think I didn’t use it in a couple of months again. But whenever I do it’s just captivating
This is excatly why I’ve never downloaded it. I mean even the poor algos in other places sometimes sucked me in way too long so I’m not tempting fate here.
Fwiw there's plenty of "fuck this" from Tiktok users in regards to the CEO and the "Trump saved the app" message that went up today. Much like creators who reluctantly said IG and YT were the only real options for them monetarily much as they dislike Meta. People pissed at TT are more focused on the mass destruction of those spaces left people without alternatives and thus wanting those spaces.
I should clarify, I'm not saying that it's immune from those things, just that it appears to have more of the "less bad" or even "not bad" stuff, whereas the others don't and have a similar history of spreading misinformation and hate to gullible audiences.
Agreed, which is why I find myself advocating for what I see as the <gulp> lesser of two evils. Even if short-form content and social media were to disappear tomorrow, we still have plenty of other sources of misinformation and a population that lacks the tools to recognize it. It's a systemic issue that can't be fixed without massive changes to education and social policy.
Yeah, that's why I think a forced sale to an American company/group/individual has the potential to be the worst case scenario.
Can't really speak to the left-wing tiktok users, but I get you there. I also think it's a sad but kinda funny move from the Biden administration to dish out one final layup for Trump. But if nothing else, it'll be interesting to see the right-wing media machine do gymnastics trying to applaud that move.
From the web:
They’re pretty doubled down on the president intervention right now, anyone think it’s going to be longer than a week?
Is this maybe why they shut it down a bit early? To let people get all pissed off before the inauguration in hopes that this gets done ASAP by Trump before he gets distracted with other more important things.
...and it's back.
Here's an article link:
www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-says-restoring-service-us-users-rcna188320
A year ago I was gonna write about TikTok’s influence on the movie industry.
I don’t think there’s been social media as culturally influential as TikTok was. Music, Film, and Books were all influenced by TikTok. Songs were written for it, movies were made popular through it, and Barnes and Nobles saw a resurgence because of them. It will be interesting what happens now, if the ban is indeed permanent.
How did TikTok play a part in Barnes and Noble's resurgence?
B&N got sold around the time Booktok was getting off the ground. In truth the new ownership actually made significant changes that revitalized the store. One of those though was allow local stores to set their own displays. There's a pivot to seeing more "book tok favorites" and romantasy spicy books and the like. It also made books quick hits that people would want to run out and buy - but then these books would stay popular rather than disappearing entirely.
I also remember seeing more videos talking about people going to the bookstore rather than ordering online - big readers being given 60 seconds to grab whatever they wanted as their birthday present and filling up more than a basket "supermarket sweep" style - I even had friends recreate that one (on snap to their friends) and have had my partner offer me the same.
Booktok definitely pushed reading - I have saved videos of "if you like X but with A, B C" books - and I bought a number of indie authors' work because of it. Booktok probably helped BN, which is why many catered their displays toward it, but I don't think it deserves all the credit for "saving" BN by any means.
Ok I knew about the "local stores having more power" point but didn't know there were "booktok" trends. Now I wanna do the 60 second sweep
It's quite fun and for the husbands/boyfriends who were doing it, it was not a cheap present either. But my friend loved seeing his fiancée happy and that's the point!
TikTok takes itself down in a period of non-enforcement and shouts "Why did you do that?"
The ban was contingent on them divesting from their Chinese owner, which there did not seem to be an earnest effort to do. I don't really feel bad for the company that simply decided not to comply with what was frankly a rather simple condition. I won't be surprised if the Trump administration, which vehemently pushed for the ban five years ago, flipped and saved it for political points.
I mean, "divest your company" is a pretty extreme condition. It's not like, "pay a fine" or something. If the owners would rather kill the app in the US than sell their company, it seems reasonable to me.
That'd be like if the government forced you to sell your house - I wouldn't call that a "simple condition".
You kinda got me there, the only next step would be forced dismantling which isn't a goal. I sort of figured there would be an easy enough time selling to somebody, either a major company or an interested billionaire, while keeping the company operating more or less identically.
They've correctly surmised that nobody actually wants to be blamed for taking tiktok down, and drawing as much attention as possible puts pressure on legislators to undo it somehow. When (not if) it works, they will have successfully navigated the situation without being taken down or made to divest.
The CEO's recent language seems to hint at this as well, they're playing their part in the game to try to stay alive without complying.
It's illegal in China to sell algorithms. They couldn't "divest" they would have had to sell completely.
And there was no guarantee that the apps being hosted wouldn't still have resulted in a risk of consequences due to the statute of limitations.
What? Chinese companies absolutely can sell algorithms, including to other countries. In some cases they may be subject to more CCP scrutiny, but there's plenty of precedent for Chinese companies selling IP to foreign companies.
Apologies, I was overbroad. it requires government approval to export because it's a restricted tech. It's illegal without that approval and that's independent of the "golden share" aspect.
Buddy, you’re not gonna believe this. https://bsky.app/profile/byadamrhodes.bsky.social/post/3lg2uztijmk2q
This is currently a voluntary shut down to avoid paying $5k per user per day. They weren't shut down forcibly by the US government, they made themselves unavailable.
Are you certain their web hosts weren't taking them offline? Oracle and the app stores didn't seem inclined to risk the $5k per user per day who they help access it. Not 5k per day.
Why do you think this was all their choice?
Aside from the fact that it's now back up less than 12 hours later?
The site was still up, serving content, just not the original service. It served the message people have been posting about, not a 404. Which means it redirected, wasn't just shut down. Service providers don't tend to just turn the content off they host, and the ban wouldn't have affected them, just TikTok, the company.
That's not factually correct. The law targeted the hosts too, including app stores and Oracle. Allegedly the reassurance that they wouldn't be fined was what was required to get it back up. That whole thing is suspicious, but read the original law.
🤦That’s what I get for not reading the article, sorry, thanks!
Been posting a while about TikTok on here, and just about 6 minutes ago, my mom told me she couldn't use TikTok.
The question is, will Trump actually push to get it temporarily unbanned when he gets inaugurated? Or if users will attempt to bypass via VPN or use other apps like Instagram Reels or even other apps with a Chinese user base.
Edit: Other apps, like Lemon8 and Capcut have also been removed.
I do video production and I'm so fucking glad Capcut is gone. I can't tell you how often I had people tell me "Oh, I did this with Capcut." and I said "What's the copyright status on the song used?" and get crickets. I send you out to the field with a Canon C100, a laptop with Creative Cloud and library of music and effects we've already paid for and I get TikTok videos I can't release now?
I was curious whether this could lead to other popular Chinese apps like Genshin Impact being banned, so I read the law. Hilariously, it calls out Tiktok and ByteDance by name. No other companies are on the chopping block right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's attorney general uses this law as leverage when negotiating with Chinese companies.
It also helps explain why they haven't looked at selling to another Chinese company (sorta like Grindr did). The bill basically says that's insufficient to avoid getting banned.
Relevant legal text
FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of— (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; (ii) TikTok; (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that— (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— (I) a public notice proposing such determina- tion; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.It's like holding a vote to specifically send Jeffrey Dahmer to prison without making the things he did illegal.
Eh, they could use this to enforce a ban on TotallyNotTikTok from any company cooperating with a US adversary per this law. The stated national security concerns are adequately addressed by this law.
Also Marvel Snap apparently. VPNs are reportedly not working which doesn't surprise me.
I'm not sure why, but it's also not working for me. I'm in Sweden on a phone that I bought in Sweden. I used to live in the US but I haven't been there for over a year.
iOS or Android? iOS app availability is based on the Apple account used for the App Store. Is the billing address for your Apple account in the US?
Android. All the cards I've ever used for Google Play have US billing addresses. That might be it.
Probably. On iOS, you can make a new Apple ID with a foreign billing address and temporarily install apps from another country. You only need a valid payment method to install paid apps, so you can just pick a random address. My UK Apple ID is billed to the House of Commons. I don’t know how it works on the android side, but might be worth trying.
I think you'll have to put a phone number which is not from US. All of the email accounts are restricted. They want rage from people.
Try logging out and seeing it's available. It may be tied to account settings.
Right now VPN's don't work as they apparently tag your account based on when you log in originally. Very possible that's hard to get reset, as of course otherwise everyone would be doing so.
I am so sorry I know this is not the best place for this not is it a really productive comment but: who cares. I just want healthcare, food that isn't filled with shit, a nice job and a planet that isn't going to burn. Like this is what leadership decides to focus on? A stupid fucking app. Could we please do something productive?
Please don't say anything about national security for the love of God. I work in security I have been getting TLP Green briefing on Rednote all week. I know.
You're acting like Congress is working 24/7 to ban this. They passed a law 180 days ago. Congress can pass multiple laws. People actually do have the capacity to work on multiple things within the same year.
Well unless the laws are for universal healthcare, bolstering the FDA/EPA, doing anything about climate change, or improving working conditions (I'll give Biden half points on that at least), then it seems to be very hard for the government to do anything.
So...do nothing if it's not one of those?
Uh while they can pass multiple laws, the actual process of getting a law passed is, to say the least, arduous. And so yes there's very much a limit on how much can be done in a congressional session, and a lot of potential laws/bills/etc die due to a lack of attention.
There were 274 public laws enacted in the 118th Congress. 77 of them were fluff laws giving federal facilities names, but that leaves 197 actual laws enacted. Getting a law passed can be arduous, but there are 535 people whose job is to pass them, plus ~16,000 staffers whose job is to assist.
Everything and everybody on TikTok can move to another platform anyway, it's not that big a deal at the end of the day. It'll change some individuals livelihoods, but that was also always the risk when they became content creators tied to a specific platform.