27 votes

TikTok is coming back online after US President-elect Donald Trump pledged to restore it

36 comments

  1. [3]
    bushbear
    Link
    Well this is suspicious to say the least. Iv not been paying attention to this whole debacle but something feels weird about it.

    Well this is suspicious to say the least. Iv not been paying attention to this whole debacle but something feels weird about it.

    29 votes
    1. Eji1700
      Link Parent
      Seems pretty straightforward to me. I told my friends months ago that the main thing trump was signaling was that he was for sale. Unless you're suspicious of what the hell that sale was, but...

      Seems pretty straightforward to me. I told my friends months ago that the main thing trump was signaling was that he was for sale. Unless you're suspicious of what the hell that sale was, but likely just piles of money and some assurances that no one has any intention of keeping.

      18 votes
  2. [22]
    puhtahtoe
    Link
    I wonder how the Republican congresspeople feel about this. It seems clear that Trump is blatantly violating the part of the law that requires evidence of a sale well underway for a delay of the...

    I wonder how the Republican congresspeople feel about this. It seems clear that Trump is blatantly violating the part of the law that requires evidence of a sale well underway for a delay of the ban to be allowed.

    Maybe this was the plan all along - let Biden get the flack for the ban so Trump can come in and save the day.

    18 votes
    1. [14]
      DefinitelyNotAFae
      Link Parent
      I don't know that the GOP will care he's violated the rule of law.... I'm worried that others won't care either.

      I don't know that the GOP will care he's violated the rule of law.... I'm worried that others won't care either.

      29 votes
      1. [13]
        public
        Link Parent
        As far as I’ve seen, the support and opposition for the ban has little to no correlation to normal political affiliations. It may be downright more popular that he ignores the law than if he...

        As far as I’ve seen, the support and opposition for the ban has little to no correlation to normal political affiliations.

        It may be downright more popular that he ignores the law than if he enforced it.

        10 votes
        1. [12]
          DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          I'm not dumb enough to think it's a good idea to let him just ignore (more) laws. The amount of people sucking up to him, including Newsom and Snoop Dogg is stomach turning. I just have a bad...

          I'm not dumb enough to think it's a good idea to let him just ignore (more) laws. The amount of people sucking up to him, including Newsom and Snoop Dogg is stomach turning.

          I just have a bad feeling about it. And I didn't think it should have been banned.

          19 votes
          1. ShroudedScribe
            Link Parent
            I guess when a Republican president is in office with a Republican-majority House and Senate, lobbying and ass-kissing becomes a requirement to make federal-level changes. Not that lobbying goes...

            I guess when a Republican president is in office with a Republican-majority House and Senate, lobbying and ass-kissing becomes a requirement to make federal-level changes.

            Not that lobbying goes away when that's not the case. "Lobbying" is probably one of my least favorite words.

            9 votes
          2. [10]
            public
            Link Parent
            IMO, what we're seeing is a divergence between the electorate and the public at large. Perhaps even a divergence between those who vote every election and those who only vote every 4 years....

            IMO, what we're seeing is a divergence between the electorate and the public at large. Perhaps even a divergence between those who vote every election and those who only vote every 4 years. Congress may have consensus to ban TikTok, but the public is, at best, divided. It's an easy disconnect for a populist to exploit.

            Still, ignoring laws calling for a ban is the less-harmful end of a slippery slope. Executive orders or selectively enforcing laws that many prior administrations have ignored are the true dangers.

            3 votes
            1. [3]
              DefinitelyNotAFae
              Link Parent
              I don't think "the electorate" and the public vary that much. I think people are voting - like many decisions - more emotionally and "vibes" based than factually. I doubt that everyone that vote...

              I don't think "the electorate" and the public vary that much. I think people are voting - like many decisions - more emotionally and "vibes" based than factually. I doubt that everyone that vote for Tom Cotton is a raging racist, and we know the House is mostly a re-election game. It's still easily exploitable, but I don't think the voters gave a mandate to ban Tiktok, because the voters were never consulted or informed. (Repeat with Congress banning its own members from using the bathrooms.)

              "Ignoring" this law would be an executive order situation and it would be a "the president doesn't have to follow the law" situation which is why I think it's particularly bad.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                updawg
                Link Parent
                Did you see this comment from @stu2b50? If you look at the PDF with the survey results, there aren't a huge number of independents who they queried, but if you go through the results, it does a...

                Did you see this comment from @stu2b50? If you look at the PDF with the survey results, there aren't a huge number of independents who they queried, but if you go through the results, it does a good job of demonstrating that the difference between Ds and Rs is largely how they interpret things, whereas independents are largely just uninformed/apathetic. They mostly responded that they didn't know what was going on and then a supermajority said they didn't vote.

                I think this is a good demonstration that there is a gulf between the electorate and the public at large. But the results seem to indicate that independents mostly agree with Democrats if they are paying attention. So there's a gap—and a logical one—but it's not necessarily where people might expect it to be when you frame the question in a specific way that implies a difference in policy preferences.

                4 votes
                1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                  Link Parent
                  That is fair, I think specifically I was intending that an individual being voted for doesn't actually mean the electorate as a whole supports everything they do, which is how I took the comment I...

                  That is fair, I think specifically I was intending that an individual being voted for doesn't actually mean the electorate as a whole supports everything they do, which is how I took the comment I was replying to, I think.

                  I'm admittedly quite tired

                  2 votes
            2. [6]
              D_E_Solomon
              Link Parent
              I don't think this holds water.... people widely voted for Trump and a conservative, Republican government. There might be an argument that those people don't necessarily reflect the wishes of...

              divergence between the electorate and the public at large

              I don't think this holds water.... people widely voted for Trump and a conservative, Republican government. There might be an argument that those people don't necessarily reflect the wishes of their voters, but I would be really hesitant to call voters ignorant.

              1 vote
              1. [5]
                public
                Link Parent
                I disagree that a simple majority equals “widely voted.” It wasn’t something like 55%—even if it was, it was geographically unequal. It was not a consensus of the people, merely the rules stating...

                I disagree that a simple majority equals “widely voted.” It wasn’t something like 55%—even if it was, it was geographically unequal. It was not a consensus of the people, merely the rules stating someone must win and someone winning.

                I’m all for calling the voters ignorant. The popularity gulf between Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act shows that most people are unconcerned with specific policy when it conflicts with groupthink.

                3 votes
                1. updawg
                  Link Parent
                  It was 49.9%, for reference.

                  It was 49.9%, for reference.

                  2 votes
                2. [3]
                  D_E_Solomon
                  Link Parent
                  Best way for any one left of center to continue to lose elections is to act as if or call their voters idiots. And elections and the frameworks we have for governing are the closest thing we have...

                  Best way for any one left of center to continue to lose elections is to act as if or call their voters idiots. And elections and the frameworks we have for governing are the closest thing we have to a consensus.

                  1. [2]
                    public
                    Link Parent
                    Despite being American, Brexit was the event that heavily soured me on simple majorities being sufficient for issues requiring broad national consensus. I have no opinion on whether remain or...

                    Despite being American, Brexit was the event that heavily soured me on simple majorities being sufficient for issues requiring broad national consensus. I have no opinion on whether remain or leave was correct—as noted above, not British. However, it was a procedural wreck from start to finish. Making a generation-defining change like that should require 55+% or simple majorities in three consecutive referenda, not a one-and-done 52%.

                    The presidency (& congressional elections), of course, do need to have a winner—there is no status quo to default back to if no candidate reaches consensus popularity.


                    Oh, you and I were talking different conversations about calling the voters morons. You're correct that it's a losing strategy to tell them that as part of the propaganda campaign.

                    1 vote
                    1. D_E_Solomon
                      Link Parent
                      There's a difference with Brexit. Brexit was a consensus that the current situation sucked... but there wasn't a real plan that everyone agreed on. There's mechanisms in congress to prevent...

                      There's a difference with Brexit. Brexit was a consensus that the current situation sucked... but there wasn't a real plan that everyone agreed on.

                      There's mechanisms in congress to prevent radical changes and ensuring that there is some level of agreement - multiple branches of government, separate house and senate with different election rules, and the dreaded senate filibuster - all of which tend to push in favor of the status quo.

                      Maybe it's splitting hair, but I think it's also dangerous to believe that voters are idiots - same as believing that Trump is dumb - it leads to bad assumptions about how people act and behave - and leads to poor political maneuver.

                      1 vote
    2. smiles134
      Link Parent
      Considering the amount of congratulating I'm seeing from the right on social media, I'm assuming they're cool with it. Laws don't apply when it benefits their own.

      Considering the amount of congratulating I'm seeing from the right on social media, I'm assuming they're cool with it. Laws don't apply when it benefits their own.

      13 votes
    3. [2]
      koopa
      Link Parent
      There has been some pushback from a couple of Republican senators today. https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/19/24347280/tiktok-ban-shutdown-ends

      There has been some pushback from a couple of Republican senators today.

      Trump and TikTok are receiving pushback on their attempt to skirt the ban, though. Republican Senators Tom Cotton and Pete Ricketts put out a joint statement Sunday morning saying there was “no legal basis” to extend the ban’s effective date beyond January 19th while praising Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft for pulling the app from their stores. Both senators had called “some of the major tech companies in recent days to say they needed to comply with the law,” according to The New York Times.

      https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/19/24347280/tiktok-ban-shutdown-ends

      11 votes
      1. updawg
        Link Parent
        As the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Tom Cotton was the one who got the ball rolling on this in the first place.

        As the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Tom Cotton was the one who got the ball rolling on this in the first place.

        9 votes
    4. [3]
      j0hn1215
      Link Parent
      Curious what laws Trump is violating here (Here specifically, a full list would be over character limit). The text of the law just ends with "Upon certain certifications, the President may extend...

      Curious what laws Trump is violating here (Here specifically, a full list would be over character limit). The text of the law just ends with "Upon certain certifications, the President may extend the deadlines by up to 90 days one time." with no stated definition of "certain certifications."
      But, I would at least argue that one cannot "Extend" a deadline that has already passed...

      3 votes
      1. [2]
        gary
        Link Parent
        Text from here. This 90 day exemption has not satisfied any of the 3 conditions, let alone all, so Trump is just pulling this extension out of his ass. Congress needs to assert their power here.

        With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that--
        (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;

        (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and

        (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.

        Text from here. This 90 day exemption has not satisfied any of the 3 conditions, let alone all, so Trump is just pulling this extension out of his ass. Congress needs to assert their power here.

        19 votes
        1. puhtahtoe
          Link Parent
          Also, it doesn't seem like Trump is even going to pretend to certify to Congress. He's just going to sign an executive order.

          Also, it doesn't seem like Trump is even going to pretend to certify to Congress. He's just going to sign an executive order.

          5 votes
    5. stu2b50
      Link Parent
      They probably don't care enough to contradict Trump on it.

      They probably don't care enough to contradict Trump on it.

      2 votes
  3. skybrian
    (edited )
    Link
    I see this as yet another example of US Presidents looking for creative workarounds for US laws they don't like, often using executive orders. This is a bipartisan trend. It's sometimes...

    I see this as yet another example of US Presidents looking for creative workarounds for US laws they don't like, often using executive orders. This is a bipartisan trend. It's sometimes understandable when something important is at stake, because Congress is somewhat dysfunctional. Usually this is before the Supreme Court rules on it, though?

    It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go to such extremes for an entertainment app. There are competing apps that people could use.

    I was happy that TikTok (or perhaps its service provider Oracle, which seems to calling the shots here?) was holding out for doing things legally. But maybe instead we get a muddy workaround until a new law is passed?

    I suppose there are lots of unenforced laws on the books.

    12 votes
  4. [6]
    Bipolar
    Link
    I don’t see why apple would take the risk of keeping the app listed while it’s a violation of federal law that would just give trump leverage if he wants anything

    I don’t see why apple would take the risk of keeping the app listed while it’s a violation of federal law that would just give trump leverage if he wants anything

    7 votes
    1. [2]
      Minori
      Link Parent
      I would hate to be involved in those strategy meetings at Apple or Google. It's not a good situation to be in.

      I would hate to be involved in those strategy meetings at Apple or Google. It's not a good situation to be in.

      11 votes
      1. Bipolar
        Link Parent
        Probably worse at Google since they just lost a federal antitrust case and Now a dude who said some of the most unhinged shit of your company is effectively in charge of the DOJ

        Probably worse at Google since they just lost a federal antitrust case and Now a dude who said some of the most unhinged shit of your company is effectively in charge of the DOJ

        8 votes
    2. [3]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      The other side is that Trump goes "These BIG TECH TRAITORS think they’re bigger than ME, the PRESIDENT! But let me tell you, NOBODY has more power than me. I DECIDE who this law applies to! We...

      The other side is that Trump goes "These BIG TECH TRAITORS think they’re bigger than ME, the PRESIDENT! But let me tell you, NOBODY has more power than me. I DECIDE who this law applies to! We need to BREAK THEM UP, folks, so that AMERICANS can finally be FREE from their horrible, biased CENSORSHIP. Believe me, it’s going to be the greatest freedom you've ever seen" and that's a whole 'nother can of worms. There's reason all of them already paid $1 million to his inauguration fund.

      4 votes
      1. Bipolar
        Link Parent
        Yeah but he would not have the power to do anything legally which he would if they keep it up. Not that I don’t believe he would just plain break the law but I just have a hard time seeing...

        Yeah but he would not have the power to do anything legally which he would if they keep it up.

        Not that I don’t believe he would just plain break the law but I just have a hard time seeing corporate lawyers tell Tim Apple that it would be fine to just ignore federal law that the supreme courts just upheld as legal.

        4 votes
      2. PuddleOfKittens
        Link Parent
        Trump doesn't want to piss Tiktok off if he can pressure it into supporting him; it's classic control the media stuff. Tiktok is very blatantly kissing the ring here, the CEO has explicitly...

        Trump doesn't want to piss Tiktok off if he can pressure it into supporting him; it's classic control the media stuff. Tiktok is very blatantly kissing the ring here, the CEO has explicitly namedropped Trump in their direct statement to the userbase.

        4 votes
  5. [2]
    donn
    Link
    Related reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonacquiescence It's not… unheard of. Basically the executive, unless at risk of getting impeached, can just choose to not comply with a court ruling.

    Related reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonacquiescence

    It's not… unheard of. Basically the executive, unless at risk of getting impeached, can just choose to not comply with a court ruling.

    2 votes
    1. DefinitelyNotAFae
      Link Parent
      Yeah it's that "constitutional crisis" part that's a concern.

      Yeah it's that "constitutional crisis" part that's a concern.

      4 votes
  6. cloud_loud
    Link
    I’m confused ngl

    I’m confused ngl

    10 votes