TikTok goes dark in the US

(techcrunch.com)

465 points | by mfiguiere5 hours ago

101 comments

  • daemoens2 hours ago
    The app was shutdown a couple of hours ago in the US and this was the message all TikTok users saw when they opened the app.[1]

    The same guy who pushed for a ban massively last year, is going to save the app despite the security concerns he and most of our government said they had. If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.

    [1] https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.c...

    • amatecha1 hour ago
      I wonder how much ByteDance got from the incoming administration to pull that stunt. Super shady. "We voluntarily shut down our service in your country (er, I mean, we HAD TO, for real!) but don't worry, a true hero is soon arriving to save the day!"
      • elfbargpt57 minutes ago
        There are much bigger factors at play than a few billion dollars
        • gitaarik27 minutes ago
          You mean more money?

          Because in the end it's always about money.

          Well about power really, but money is the main means to get that.

        • amatecha55 minutes ago
          Word, I imagine there are all kinds of shenanigans at play, I'm just not spending that much effort thinking about it. We'll never know the complete story on any of this stuff. Maybe in tens of years, if ever.
        • bryanrasmussen24 minutes ago
          probably not for the guy who gets the few billion dollars.
          • elfbargpt20 minutes ago
            Haha fair. But I don't think any company should be strong-armed by another nation into selling. Meta would never be allowed to sell their "Chinese arm" to a domestic Chinese entity...part of the reason there isn't one
            • wavefunction38 seconds ago
              The Chinese don't really use facebook in the first place do they though? And facebook's utility to China is the same as TikTok's, just less direct: manipulating Americans and other non-Chinese users of Facebook. It seems like people want to be manipulated though.
      • pjc5029 minutes ago
        Other way round: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/jeff-yass-billionaire...

        Yass has paid in tens of millions of dollars, he's going to call that in to get an unban.

        I really don't know which way to bet on this though. The Trump presidency is going to be consistently unpredictable.

        • amatecha27 minutes ago
          Yeah I was thinking that too! Plus the "look how we made you look like the hero" aspect. Shady stuff all around.
      • likeabatterycar14 minutes ago
        Cam you detail exactly what conspiracy you are alleging without evidence?

        This is the corporate version of "he quit before they could fire him".

    • elfbargpt2 hours ago
      I have a feeling the ban is likely the result of "special interest" groups as opposed to a "classified briefing"
      • bjourne2 hours ago
        "major major major generational problem … We have a TikTok problem, we have a Gen-Z problem." https://www.liberationnews.org/israels-pinkwashing-task-forc...
        • dekelpilli1 hour ago
          Worth noting: > In a phone call leaked by the Tehran Times
          • lordofgibbons53 minutes ago
            It's a recorded audio file, not an opinion or hearsay, so I don't think the leaking organization matters.

            Would you feel better if an anonymous user uploaded it to Reddit/Twitter/Tiktok?

        • jjcon1 hour ago
          Somehow people like you always find a way to blame the Jews eyeroll - can't believe HN allows drivel like this
          • ImHereToVote1 hour ago
            Please don't conflate Jewish people with this genocidal state. Thank you.
            • dekelpilli43 minutes ago
              Please don't conflate the ADL, whose CEO is quoted above, with the state of Israel.
            • 45 minutes ago
              undefined
          • lordofgibbons1 hour ago
            Why are you conflating Jews and Israel?

            That's extremely antisemitic given that Jewish groups have been some of the most public and vocal opponents of Israel's genocidal actions.

            • jjcon22 minutes ago
              Lol at all the 14 year olds that swallowed Iranian propaganda showing up here to prove the point
              • lordofgibbons12 minutes ago
                ooo what a fun game! Good guess on my age.

                Now estimate the age of the International Court of justice, the United Nations, and dozens of international aid organizations who have called Israel's actions as a genocide? lol or do you consider them to be Iranian proxies too?

                • jjcon2 minutes ago
                  >Good guess on my age.

                  I'm on a roll. Let me guess again. You support Hamas actions on Oct 7? You do not believe there should be a Jewish state of Israel?

                  If so do you also support the slaughter of Jews as the founding charter of Hamas called for?

            • 46 minutes ago
              undefined
            • theferalrobot33 minutes ago
              [flagged]
              • lordofgibbons21 minutes ago
                Your last two replies here were flagged (most likely for glorifying war and genocide), so you have deleted them and tried again with a softer message. Hasbara is out in force this morning!
                • theferalrobot12 minutes ago
                  Doubling down with more conspiracies? Have you heard Israel can control the weather too?
      • mikae11 hour ago
        The new president is populist. Once the rage of the TikTokrs is overwhelming, he's going to find a way to reinstate it.
      • chvid52 minutes ago
        A special interest group called Meta.
      • logicchains1 hour ago
        Special interest groups that spend a huge amount of money to unseat representatives who go against their interests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/16/cong...
      • lordofgibbons2 hours ago
        It's obvious the app is being banned because for once we had unbiased news about Israel/Palestine and the ongoing genocide.

        A media outlet not easy to censor is unacceptable to the Israeli lobby, and therefore unacceptable to our politicians.

        • null_deref1 hour ago
          It baffles me that people can seem to comprehend that only the United States government has interests in its media outlets, and the authoritarian second to the US in the global stage don’t. 1. TikTok in the westernized form is banned in China. 2. When some people tried to move to rednote (the in the open Chinese app), they were getting banned in the first few hours for being gay and other ideas that came with them, so it’s very entirely plausible that also TikTok is heavily regulated from the officials of a foreign actor.
          • danielspace2357 minutes ago
            There's plenty of openly gay Chinese RedNote influencers, as there have been for years now [1]. I don't know why you're pushing disinformation. The Americans getting banned probably just violated their ToS, since they were in Chinese and they couldn't understand them.

            [1] https://www.xiaohongshu.com/search_result?keyword=gay (requires log-in)

        • hmry1 hour ago
          For those who don't know, Mitt Romney said this.

          "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."

          • cudgy37 minutes ago
            Sure. Everyone reads the 100 page TOS for every site and app they use, right?
          • surfaceofthesun1 hour ago
            Just to add on:

            I don’t imagine discussion of what’s happening to the Uyghurs is getting much traction in TikTok either.

            Movement against TikTok started started with the Trump admin well before Oct 7, 2023 [1].

            I think this is less Israel / Palestine and a better explanation lies elsewhere. Namely, that anti-China sentiment has been growing for a while now and Meta has plenty of money to burn (on the Metaverse, Lobbyists, etc.)

            The actual law was passed after accounts of spying on Hong Kong citizens were made public [2].

            ———

            1 — https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

            2 — https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...

            • lordofgibbons1 hour ago
              The effort to ban tiktok stalled for a few years due to public backlash.

              Only after the strong shift in sentiment by younger Americans on Israel's genocidal actions did the effort renew with vigor.

        • gymbeaux1 hour ago
          This reminds me of the Al Jazeera America (“AJAM”) news channel. They weren’t banned per sé, but it’s obvious they were doomed from the start. An Arab news network operating in the United States… if you think TikTok had a target painted on its back for being Chinese-owned… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_America
          • victorbjorklund38 minutes ago
            They arent "just" an arab media. They are financed and controlled by the dictatorship of qatar. That is like claiming Russia Today was domed because it was a "slavic" network. No it was domed because it is propaganda financed and controlled by a dictatorship.
        • brazzy1 hour ago
          "unbiased" as in: maximally biased to serve Chinese interests.
        • FranzFerdiNaN2 hours ago
          The process to ban it was started years earlier.
          • serial_dev1 hour ago
            It was, but why did the ban only succeed now?

            Edit: to be honest, it is an honest question.

            My guess is that the uniparty can’t afford a popular platform they don’t fully control and where there is significant dissent.

            On Russia-Ukraine, the voices against US propaganda didn’t gain enough traction for them to worry about it. With Israel-Palestine, the opposition was for the first time reaching people who they previously never could.

            • Aloisius1 hour ago
              > It was, but why did the ban only succeed now?

              This has been going on for years now. The Navy banned TikTok because of security concerns in 2019.

              Then in 2020, the US announced it was considering banning them. ByteDance planned to divest by selling to an American company. The Chinese government disagreed.

              TikTok sued and that took a while to go through the courts.

              Then TikTok tried negotiating to avoid having to divest for a couple years by placing all private user data in the US, but later leaked recordings made it clear that Chinese employees still had access.

              A law to ban TikTok on US government devices was then passed.

              Then a law to ban TikTok unless they divest was drafted, but it took a couple years to pass and then that had to wind its way through the courts.

            • suraci1 hour ago
              because the election campaign has already ended?
        • a_wild_dandan2 hours ago
          People will downvote you for revealing this, but it's the truth. I saw it on TikTok, after all.
          • seventhtiger2 hours ago
            Leading politicians said it explicitly. It's been discussed in the news since the conflict started.
            • 9dev1 hour ago
              It’s not. The effort started earlier. It’s just a convenient narrative.
              • seventhtiger1 hour ago
                Based on what do you say it's not? How is it a convenient narrative?

                The ban both could have started earlier and been pushed to completion based on more recent factors.

                Lawmakers talked about propaganda potential relating to Palestine directly, multiple times.

                https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...

                • 9dev1 hour ago
                  The whole TikTok legislation was not created to suppress Palestinian views, even if that may have been a side effect of it, and repeating that does not make it true.

                  It’s a convenient narrative because it sounds like „the government“ or „they“ want to conceal the truth, and suppress the honest rebels. It’s a trope.

                  Again, it may well be that some parts of the government feel like the side effects are beneficial, and I’m not commenting on that. But spinning the story to say this was the whole purpose of the law is simply not the truth, and instead pushing a certain narrative.

                  • seventhtiger55 minutes ago
                    The choice doesn't have to be binary. There can be multiple factors, which should all be discussed.

                    Dismissing a frequently reported on factor that mentioned by officials requires a higher burden than vague commentary on narrative shaping. Trying to minimize it despite factual statements is its own narrative.

                • spookie27 minutes ago
                  In the second paragraph of the link you posted this is said:

                  > But in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, conservatives have become hyper fixated on policing pro-Palestinian messages on the app, accusing TikTok of influencing young Americans to “support Hamas” and favoring pro-Palestinian content.

                  If you follow the link attached to "influencing young Americans", you'll find Palestine isn't mentioned once, but Hamas is.

                  Of course there's bias everywhere, and we should have by now ways to follows stories to their source automagically by now. But anyhow.

    • bilekas50 minutes ago
      This is bizarre.. Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ?

      Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?

      • TOMDM39 minutes ago
        It was explicitly written in this law specifically that the president can unilaterally decide that an affected platform has done enough to no longer qualify for the ban.
      • helsinkiandrew44 minutes ago
        > Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ?

        No, but they can direct the federal government to deprioritize enforcement.

      • jbombadil44 minutes ago
        My understanding is that the law doesn’t ban TikTok. The law gives the president the power to ban TikTok. So the president can elect not to use said power.
        • yobid2041 minutes ago
          The law quite clearly states bytedance aka tiktok so yea tiktok is 100% banned and the penalty is massive fines that would essentially bankrupt them.
      • yobid2043 minutes ago
        No, he can't. Congress would have to revoke it. But it has bipartison support. So its just more of the same charade BS that he rants on about. Its all nonsense from him. It will be worse this time around bc he is not all there (even moreso than 2016). The next 4 yrs are going to be quite comical. He can't even control his bowels and he has to wear diapers to stop leaking.
        • TOMDM36 minutes ago
          I'm no fan of trump, but the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform.

          > The Act exempts a foreign adversary controlled applica- tion from the prohibitions if the application undergoes a “qualified divestiture.” §2(c)(1). A “qualified divestiture” is one that the President determines will result in the appli- cation “no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” §2(g)(6)(A).

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

          • bilekas31 minutes ago
            > the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform.

            This feels like a fast track path to an oligarch system ? Pay enough and get your exception..

    • 45 minutes ago
      undefined
    • chvid54 minutes ago
      Biden could have cut a deal with TikTok instead of this. That would have left the US with a least one major social media not in the pocket of Trump.
      • epolanski17 minutes ago
        They gave bytedance plenty of time to to sell. And TikTok would've not been cheap.

        I'm not a fan of the ban, mind you, but it's not like they were ordered to leave the country.

        • suraci4 minutes ago
          Sounds like the mafia.

          I wish CPC could do the same thing to Telsa and Apple, or even to kidnap Tim Cook just like how they kidnapped Meng Wanzhou, gee, that would be thrilling

        • chvid9 minutes ago
          As it looks now Trump will facilitate a deal within 90 days - Biden could have done that and left the US with a much healthier media landscape.

          You are free to call Biden more principled but to me it looks like a shot in the foot.

    • 1 hour ago
      undefined
    • sirisaysgpt2 hours ago
      It's just China/TikTok's Hail Mary. They want to make Trump look bad. Not sure if they realize that most of the ardent supporters of TikTok/migrater to Little Red Note are young female users who incidentally hate Trump anyways. And also ironic since a lot of those users signed up for Little Red Note got banned instantly for posting DEI content such as LGBTQ or trans.

      Also, very happy to see all the China/Russia supporters on this thread crying.

      • rayval1 hour ago
        I was on RedNote just now. I saw some gay content that had been there yesterday as well, and has not been removed.

        BTW, the RedNote userbase in China is 70% female, similar to Pinterest in the US. That may be why there's an affinity with a portion of the Tiktok userbase. The RedNote users are not into politics (at least were not). They cats, cooking, fashion, interior decorating, travel, sports.

        • sirisaysgpt1 hour ago
          One American user, who identified themselves as “non-binary” on RedNote, was censored after publishing a post on Tuesday asking if the platform welcomed gay people. The post was removed within hours, the user told CNN [0]

          The next day, they uploaded a new post saying they will quit the platform over the decision but was soon on the receiving end of homophobic comments, with some users accusing them of cultural imposition.

          A Chinese user suggested that he try covering his nipples, as Chinese social media platforms generally impose restrictions on displaying them when it is perceived as sexually suggestive.

          A few RedNote users also noted that posts about the Japanese anime My Hero Academia, which faced censorship in China since 2018 due to controversial references to Japan’s wartime history, have since been removed from the platform.

          [0] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-...

          • rayval32 minutes ago
            Thanks for the ref. Not sure why that particular user got banned. A search just now on RedNote using the hashtag "gay" returns 8.7k posts. The results show plenty of men in skimpy clothing with uncovered nipples.
            • andrewinardeer22 minutes ago
              Perhaps RedNote is having trouble scaling their moderation?
          • danielspace2350 minutes ago
            Why are you spreading misinformation? There's plenty of Chinese gay influencers on RedNote and there have been for years [0], saying LGBTQ talk there is banned is nonsensical. The ban waves are probably due to the app struggling to scale moderation to handle all the new people, including the ones disrespectful of Chinese societal norms.

            [0] https://www.xiaohongshu.com/search_result?keyword=gay (requires log-in)

            • blackeyeblitzar28 minutes ago
              I’ve seen social media posts by Chinese users on how not to get censored / banned on RedNote, and one common tip is to not share any LGBTQ content. Clearly there’s a fear about it, and gullible young people who flocked to little red book are only understanding reality when they get suddenly banned for something harmless.
        • TypingOutBugs51 minutes ago
          > The RedNote users are not into politics

          I wonder why? Post about Taiwan or 89 or Winnie the Pooh and find out :)

        • suraci1 hour ago
          for what I Know, gay content is ok, gay flags are not ok
        • sekai1 hour ago
          Okay now try these:

          -"Taiwan is a country"

          -"Free Tibet"

          -"Covid came from China"

          -"Uyghur concentration camps"

          -"Tiananmen square massacre"

          -"Mao starved 45 million Chinese"

          • 38 minutes ago
            undefined
      • suraci2 hours ago
        why it's about Russia? are Russians a part of this too?
        • simion3142 hours ago
          >why it's about Russia? are Russians a part of this too? reply

          Yes, Russian bot farms work hard on TikTok. Algorithms and bot farms have no right for "free speech".

          • LAC-Tech1 hour ago
            I've never understood this conspiracy theory. If Russia does have bot farms, and they're effective, surely the US has much, much larger bot farms - their budgment for this sort of thing completely dwarfs Russia.

            Or is the US just too much of a moral actor to do this?

            • low_tech_love45 minutes ago
              This underlying idea that the US state is “just the same” as Russia, China, etc. (and that as such they will function in the same way) is imho one the biggest factors on the decline of the quality of western democracy today. I’m not American, have only been there once a couple of days, and have no special sympathy for the country, but the fact that so many people do not understand that the US democracy is fundamentally different than the Russian or Chinese regimes is such a sad, depressing thing.
              • LAC-Tech11 minutes ago
                They're "just the same" in the sense that they would surely both use similar tools in the information war. Just like they're "just the same" in having submarines, fighter jets, etc etc.

                The content of the information war or different, but it's still a war, and the idea that the US would just cede all advantages to Russia because they're above using bots strikes me as faintly ridiculous.

            • wqaatwt1 hour ago
              > Or is the US just too much of a moral actor to do this?

              US government has massively more oversight because of still somewhat functioning legislative and judicial systems. Also free press is still a thing (compared to Russia anyway..).

              Ao any large scale program like this would inevitably be leaked and scrutinized (of course if they keep it somewhat low scale it will probably pass under the radar).

              So effectively.. yes? It is?

            • jazzyjackson1 hour ago
              Russia was just flowing USA's lead, Centcom was contracting out influence operations through sock puppet accounts since 2011, no different than Radio Free Asia really, influence hearts and minds, now with just a little automation.

              https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...

            • victorbjorklund35 minutes ago
              That does not make any sense.

              "If germany had concentration camps and they were effective then surely US has much larger concentration camps"

              Why do you assume that US must be worse than the worst in everything? US is not perfect but russia, iran, north korea etc are on another level.

            • therouwboat1 hour ago
              No, US is the one that gives them platform.
            • simion3141 hour ago
              Say it is true, then both are wrong and evil. But from my POV Ruzzia has more interests in destabilizing my country and region then do a invasion they would call liberation and grab some strategic lands.
            • cyberax1 hour ago
              It's not a conspiracy theory. We know where the farms were located and several former bot farm workers spoke about them.

              The US government can barely make a comment telling people that they're not horses.

            • levzzz1 hour ago
              [dead]
          • suraci1 hour ago
            Are they in the room with us right now?

            Does they also faked opinions about Isreal and Gaza?

            It's horrible, how should we identify them?

            • simion3141 hour ago
              >Are they in the room with us right now?

              This is well known but ou can contionue to pdo your job pretending it is not. Independent group also could prove this, it is easy, thousands of accounts that were created at the same time, then slept for years are activated at the same time and spread same content.

              Ruzzia was very proud by the cyber troll army, did they start denying it now? And now do you belive their Mistier of Invasion ? I mean they are still reporting that they are always downing 100% of the drones but the debries sometimes hit the target, sometimes cigarrates or lighting cause fires... so please let's ignore everything those criminals say.

              Do you pretend bot farms do not exist?

              >It's horrible, how should we identify them?

              Social Media can identify them if they want.

              As a regular users in general you can spot a bot account if it is new or hybernated for years and just started posting. But the issue is with bots that vote, give lies this ones are used to boost content so the algorithm pushes that agenda in fron of real users. but having many bot accounts increase their evaluation so they are not putting effort into silencing them.

      • talldatethrow1 hour ago
        The message being displayed to users is very pro Trump right in the message.

        And I assume you mean woke* content not DEI.

    • seydor1 hour ago
      Blatantly pandering to Donald Trump is the new ESG, DEI and woke combined for silicon valleys
      • matwood44 minutes ago
        Haha. DEI is gone unless it’s pro-Trump.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • extheat2 hours ago
      > made them vote together across party lines

      Ha, is that uniparty vote supposed to be something meaningful? If the government had true concerns, they could 1) be aired to the public and 2) other senators like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul would not be speaking against the ban.

      People can change their views and minds. It's only a problem when you lie and pretend you didn't. Pres Biden signed the law and could suspend it now if he wanted, but he chose not to do it as it'd be contradictory to his own signing. And of course soon-to-be President Trump will get the credit for reverting it. Nobody cares about the details beyond those invested into politik.

      • daemoens2 hours ago
        It's meaningful because it's one of the few things congress could actually pass. You can count on one hand the number of bills that passed this year with that kind of support that wasn't something like a budget bill.
      • kgen1 hour ago
        Or maybe occam's razor suggests that there's indeed something more concerning about usage of the app that we aren't privy to?
        • bendbro1 hour ago
          Yes, occam's razor would suggest the government randomly decided exactly now was the time to start working in our best interests, and also those interests are super secret and have absolutely nothing to do with recent geopolitical happenings nor anything to do with the stated beliefs of the politicians driving the government.
  • jandrewrogers1 hour ago
    A point I think most people don’t understand is that the government interest in TikTok has little to do with exploiting user data per se, a lot of other companies do that. The issue is that TikTok is somewhat unique in being aggressively weaponized in currently very active “grey zone” conflicts.

    This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters. Geopolitic strategies are increasingly executed as grey zone warfare, and some hybrid warfare, because the costs and risks of traditional overt warfare have become unacceptably high.

    • jmkni1 hour ago
      You mention “grey zone conflicts” then opine that people don’t know what that is…then don’t actually explain what it is!
      • Vegenoid1 hour ago
        This is the very top of the "Description" section of the Wikipedia page for "Grey-zone (international relations)"[0]:

        > Use of the term grey-zone is widespread in national security circles, but there is no universal agreement on the definition of grey-zone, or even whether it is a useful term, with views about the term ranging from "faddish" or "vague", to "useful" or "brilliant"

        It goes on to say:

        > Grey zone warfare generally means a middle, unclear space that exists between direct conflict and peace in international relations.

        [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...

        • 14 minutes ago
          undefined
        • wickedsight4 minutes ago
          So it's pretty much a cold war, but we don't want to say that?
      • 1 hour ago
        undefined
    • IAmNotACellist1 hour ago
      "Grey zone conflict" sounds a lot like our powers are upset they don't have the level of control over information that the adversary has. They want to be the ones to censor, suppress, and promote, rather than another country. The goal isn't more open access to information.
      • wolletd1 hour ago
        You make it sound like that's generally a negative thing, implying that the information being promoted by other countries is made equal and has some implicit right to be spread. But it's not, it's geopolitic information warfare.
        • epolanski7 minutes ago
          It is?

          The problem has no easy solution.

          At the end of the day, either users are really in control for what they can or they cannot talk about or it's censored one way or another and thus not free.

          Information war is complex and if we don't allow our foes to express their povs then all we're left is our own manipulated media. If we do allow it we might face a spread of a different kind of information.

          I wish this was all solved by allowing everybody to spread whatever information and educating citizens since young age about raising a lot of doubt about anything they hear/see in the news/socials.

          But again this is also complicated on a social media level especially with those auto feeder algorithms that will either push you controversial content because it makes views or just because you stumbled on few videos on the topic so it's gonna push you even further in the hole.

          In any case there's no simple solution.

          The issue with China is that our own information and misinformation cannot reach them either.

          We allowed Russian state media for long on our platforms because they allowed our on theirs too. Reddit or YouTube or X were never banned there. But again 90% of Russians get informed by tv, and the minority that doesn't gets it on VK or other Russian social media.

      • alwa1 hour ago
        “More open access to information” is not the adversary’s goal, either. Is that goal served by preserving the adversary’s control over the information environment?
      • red_admiral1 hour ago
        I think it's more the other way round, that they don't want others to have the same powers they do?

        If you control the "last mile" infrastructure, you have a pretty good idea what's going on. If you control the mobile network, you can track everyone, and flash their baseband processor if you like.

        (see also: concerns about Huawei equipment in our internet infrastructure)

        The documents that Snowden released confirmed that this kind of thing was going on. To be honest, I don't think that really surprised anyone in the security community.

        We just don't want China to have the same power to monitor our citizens as we have ourselves.

      • deepsun1 hour ago
        Whether they want or not, they cannot. The democratic system, even deficient as one in US, still does its job and works against blatant information suppression.
      • raverbashing1 hour ago
        You are not wrong per se

        > This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters

        Looks like you're just confirming what OP said

        Might as well look up the definition of "5th column"

        • 1 hour ago
          undefined
    • int_1 hour ago
      They can’t manufacture consent anymore regarding false flag wars that only benefit large war profiteering corporations.
      • wilg1 hour ago
        the problem this law solves is that in tiktok's case the "they" who has the power to manufacture consent is the PRC
        • theshrike7927 minutes ago
          They don't need to, people share and watch the content voluntarily because it has novel value.

          "Why wasn't I told this before?" Is a common sentiment in those videos.

    • nonrandomstring1 minute ago
      Other ways [0] to think about "grey zone" conflict:

        cold-war (not an obsolete term)
      
        ambient non-linear conflict
      
        cyberwar
      
        business 
      
      
      [0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/after-war/
    • atsjie43 minutes ago
      These arguments become so vague to me that it just feels like an excuse for governments to do whatever they want.

      Calling it "Grey zone conflict" feels like the "Deep state" shenanigans... It's primarily marketing to achieve your goal.

      We've seen the invasion of Iraq; that was all based on lies. We got ISIS as a result... "National security circles" look for evidence so it fits their narrative. Like watching FoxNews. It's a very narrowminded funnel of carefully picked pieces of evidence. They are not truth seekers that aim to provide a holistic view of the situation. No, they are scared aged men who love to control the narrative and see danger in everything in the hope to get more funding for their next projects.

      Btw; banning TikTok is a good thing, but for other reasons entirely.

    • epolanski15 minutes ago
      Is there solid evidence about that?

      The only study I've seen said that TikTok wasn't any more biased than other social medias.

    • varsketiz1 hour ago
      This. I suggest to read Unrestricted Warfare to understand more on how TikTok (or FB, X, Instagram and such) can be used as tools in modern conflict.
      • epolanski2 minutes ago
        Brexit and Trump #1 would've not happened without the likes of Cambridge analytica targeting undecided voters with precision.

        Social media manipulation has already been effective.

    • nikanj1 hour ago
      TikTok is somewhat unique in presenting a real, non-us-based competitor to FB/Instagram. A bit of lobbying to block your competitor is a deft move on Mark’s part
    • Dalewyn1 hour ago
      >The issue is that TikTok is somewhat unique in being aggressively weaponized in currently very active “grey zone” conflicts.

      That has been happening since time immemorial.

      What is actually the issue is that for the first time ever in the post-WW2 Pax Americana era, media is being weaponized by a powerful non-American state (China).

      America does through Facebook, Mysterious Twitter X, Reddit, CNN, Fox News, PBS, et al. what China does through TikTok. If anything, other countries should also seriously consider banning foreign media and realize insofar as future geopolitics that Pax Americana is ending.

      • csomar9 minutes ago
        The USSR had significant reach back at the time, and a quite ideological one. The last 25 years allowed the US to relax significantly.
      • superjan19 minutes ago
        According to wikipedia, China is blocking most of the sites you mentioned. I was surprised to see that Russia does not.

        https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_i...

      • red_admiral1 hour ago
        Didn't the USSR have a pretty good "foreign relations" propaganda team?
      • sirisaysgpt1 hour ago
        It's been pretty entertaining to see all the China (and Russia) supporters crying on this thread. It's been a horrible for year for China after all, they needed some good news, but got none.
        • Dalewyn1 hour ago
          I'm not a "China supporter" so much as I am simply stating reality for what it is.

          America banned TikTok because it's not something America can control, that really is all there is to it. It's even stated right there in the law: Sell TikTok to America and they can do business.

    • iamnotsure55 minutes ago
      Is gray a hair color or colour?
    • dp-hackernews1 hour ago
      Chase Hughes:

      "Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM

    • Ylpertnodi1 hour ago
      >but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters.

      Education?

      • pandemic_region1 hour ago
        College degree here, I have no idea what it actually means.
    • EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK1 hour ago
      You mean, Romania?
  • AirMax984 hours ago
    It's a shame that it's come to this. I feel that all arguments that TikTok is unhealthy or spyware and bad for our general public are valid, but the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever. Rather than have some sort of further regulation for what data any application can collect and present to Americans, we've just brought the hammer down on the millions of people that use this application for their livelihood. This serves only to enrich our American tech monopolies — companies which have proven to us that they have bad intentions towards our country's people.

    Truly bleak.

    • wilg4 hours ago
      None of those arguments are the salient one, which is that a geopolitical adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. They could simply have divested.
      • t0bia_s2 hours ago
        "...there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

        Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972

        https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

        • low_tech_love32 minutes ago
          So the alternative is to defend democracy by letting a foreign authoritarian entity take over your country in the name of (their) freedom?

          I don’t get how can Americans be so insecure about themselves and have such fragile trust in what they can achieve as a country. This idea that foreign authoritarian regimes should be respected as much as their own people and system is just baffling.

        • sirisaysgpt1 hour ago
          "And TikTok has special characteristics—a foreign adversary's ability to leverage its control over the platform to collect vast amounts of personal data from 170 million U. S. users—that justify this differential treatment. [S]peaker distinctions of this nature are not presumed in- valid under the First Amendment."

          Unanimous decision to ban TikTok from a divided Supreme Court, 2025.

          • ImHereToVote55 minutes ago
            China can buy private data from Metastasis just like anyone else. This argument is bunk.
            • ThrowawayTestr33 minutes ago
              Buying aggregated data is in no way comparable to owning the collection method itself.
            • Vegenoid50 minutes ago
              What is Metastasis?
        • moshun2 hours ago
          Amazing that we don’t hear this book quoted more often along with 1984, we seem to be living funhouse versions of both.
          • tsimionescu2 hours ago
            Note that this preface was not allowed to be published together with the book, it was censored last minute by the publishers. The public narrative about Animal Farm is almost exclusively that it is an allegory for the USSR, an attack on the false equality that they professed. The preface explaining that it's very much intended to attack the UK and more generally European and US governments' tendencies is even today not included in the vast majority of printings of Animal Farm.
            • UniverseHacker1 hour ago
              Those publishers must have been tragically born without a sense of irony.
              • ImHereToVote54 minutes ago
                They are just practicing Oligarchical Collectivism.
            • goatlover1 minute ago
              It's obviously a criticism of both. Orwell was not fond of the USSR either. He was not a proponent of state communism.
            • mlvljr1 hour ago
              [dead]
        • surfaceofthesun59 minutes ago
          The US government forcing spinoffs is a core tenant of antitrust enforcement. We’ve seen similar enforcement applied to other applications like Grindr [1].

          The fundamental issue is ByteDance ownership. Forced divestiture due to legitimate concern for potential abuses is perfectly acceptable whether by a financial or national security rationale.

          ———

          1 - https://www.axios.com/2024/04/27/biden-tiktok-sale-grindr

        • 1 hour ago
          undefined
        • wqaatwt1 hour ago
          > destroying all independence of thought."

          Not all of it. Just some of it. No need to see everything in such a black and white way.

          Also Orwell was obviously not talking about major entities run by other countries. Do you think he would have opposed stopping newspapers directly run by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union from operating inside Britain?

          • ImHereToVote51 minutes ago
            Instead of censoring. Just teach the populace critical thinking to question the validity of all propagated information. Have public debates on what is correct about what the enemy is saying and what is wrong. Also teach the populace to have the same scrutiny about their own governments lies, like WMDs and such.
            • wqaatwt35 minutes ago
              > Just teach the populace critical thinking

              Let’s JUST invent practical nuclear fusion and sentient AI while we’re at it. Both would be probably significantly easier to achieve..

        • selimthegrim1 hour ago
          Wow I did not read this preface in high school when we did Animal Farm. Say it ain’t so Mr Kramer.
          • ImHereToVote51 minutes ago
            It was censored in your version.
            • selimthegrim2 minutes ago
              I will point out one of Orwell’s points doesn’t hold up - Mihailovich did collaborate with the Germans towards the end of the war.
        • wilg1 hour ago
          yes very brave and original to quote 1984 but actually its not totalitarian in any way. the means here are extremely reasonable and there's no free speech issue.
      • low_tech_love34 minutes ago
        This entire thread could be removed and only this comment should be kept. Unfortunately people have bought into this idea that all players in this game are following the rules. The US government is an extremely complex system and there is no way they would have reached a bipartisan conclusion on this if there wasn’t strong (confidential) evidence to support it.
      • ewild4 hours ago
        to me this is the only important one. Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture, if they were to get in trouble for it, then what? the US doesnt have any influence over them we would just ban them and at that point its too late. realistically it already is too late. a huge point imo aswell is we ARENT at war right now, but if we are at war the amount of information china can both push and obtain through tiktok would be large enough to change the tides of a war
        • blackeyeblitzar2 hours ago
          China already wages asymmetrical warfare of all kinds - cyberattacks, IP theft, espionage, encroaching on other country’s territory, literally ramming ships in the South China Sea - subtly influencing other countries is a bridge they crossed a long time ago probably. It’s why Douyin has time limits and strict guidelines on content to make it more productive and educational, but TikTok doesn’t.
        • hypeatei3 hours ago
          > Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture

          Not the entire U.S. population is on TikTok. Even if a significant percentage are, your argument is that they cannot think for themselves? It is widely known that TT is Chinese owned/controlled yet Americans still used it. Even a regulation requiring disclosure of that fact each time you open it would be fine. But an outright ban on the app itself? This is a huge "feel good" moment which will not improve any aspects of the social media environment in the U.S.

          • wilg3 hours ago
            they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it.

            we don't let any foreign citizens work on missiles and stuff (ITAR), we shouldn't let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure

            • sterlind2 hours ago
              > they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it.

              this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. even if the CCP wasn't manipulating the algorithm to sway US public opinion - I don't know whether they were or not - having that option open was far too valuable to part with it.

              and I think they were playing a game of chicken, honestly. they bargained for the US government being too dysfunctional - and TikTok too popular - for the ban to happen.

              • SilasX1 hour ago
                >this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it.

                I think that's kind of trivializing the position they were in. Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement?

                I don't think the law is necessarily bad, considering the national security implications, but it's a cop-out to dismiss the burden of being forced to sell a major part of an enterprise as no big deal and the owner as just stubborn.

                • sterlind1 hour ago
                  > Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement?

                  to be clear, I don't think ByteDance was greedy. I suspect ByteDance would have been happy to cash out. but it wasn't up to them, they needed approval from the CCP.

                  if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China, I'd understand and even empathize with China requiring it be sold. they'd be right to mistrust us.

                  • creato1 hour ago
                    > if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China

                    China avoided this problem by ensuring that never happened in the first place.

                    • AnthonyMouse1 hour ago
                      No, we've seen this happen before in China, where some US company becomes popular, e.g. millions of people in China have bought iPhones.

                      Then China requires the company's operations in China to be more than 50% owned by China. The TikTok thing is very much "what's good for the goose", but it's also the US acting more like China the authoritarian country.

                      • creato54 minutes ago
                        > US social media startup
                        • AnthonyMouse39 minutes ago
                          That also happened, e.g. YouTube (Google) operated in China prior to 2009, but Google US didn't much like censoring things on behalf of China.
                  • SilasX1 hour ago
                    The question was whether you would roll your eyes at the startup and have no sympathy for that startup because of the "big chunk of change" they could have gotten selling it.

                    You can both believe that the requirement is justified and that it comes at a big cost for the org that would have to sell. They aren't mutually exclusive.

            • hypeatei3 hours ago
              Yes, I know the law doesn't name TikTok/ByteDance specifically to be banned outright, that is just the effect.

              > let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure

              This is an exaggeration that a social media platform for short form content is communications infrastructure, akin to a cell tower or fiber optic line. I'd the say the same for your mention of ITAR in a thread about, again, a social media platform.

              If we were serious, there would be regulations for all social media, not just forcing of U.S. ownership then saying "all good, this can't be bad since Americans own it"

              • stratocumulus02 hours ago
                At the same time, foreign companies are only allowed to operate in China through partnerships with Chinese companies. Why should we play fair if they don't?
                • tsimionescu1 hour ago
                  By this logic, the US should start imprisoning people who aren't vocal enough about being anti-China, right? Why should the US play fair if China isn't?
                • ascorbic2 hours ago
                  China is a totalitarian dictatorship with complete surveillance over the domestic internet. Not really comparable.
                  • wilg1 hour ago
                    yeah and we don't want them having a surveillance tool over a huge part of our domestic internet
              • wilg3 hours ago
                it is not an exaggeration at all. it's a different layer of infrastructure, but it's still infrastructure. the mention of ITAR is an analogy, which I know you understand.

                if "we were serious" about what? the issue of foreign control is not relevant to domestic companies. we could have some other regulations too, sure, but this one is reasonable.

                • hypeatei3 hours ago
                  Serious, meaning we wouldn't play whack-a-mole and instead place rules on all of them then let the free market decide. I'll repeat, disclosures could be added for foreign controlled apps. I take issue with the fact that we're making a Chinese app the boogeyman but foreign influence campaigns can happen on any platform as seen in recent U.S. elections on Facebook et. al

                  I think people should be able to decide which social media apps they want to use. They're not even close to reaching the levels of the "infrastructure" box you're forcing them into to justify this decision.

                  • wilg3 hours ago
                    i dont want to argue about the definition of infrastructure. concretely, tiktok crosses the threshold of influence and risk where it is reasonable to require them to divest or close. no brainer.
                • leptons2 hours ago
                  >it's a different layer of infrastructure, but it's still infrastructure.

                  TikTok isn't "infrastructure", TikTok is software. TikTok exploits the infrastructure of the internet across the world, it is not infrastructure itself. The servers TikTok runs on is technically "infrastrucutre", but those same servers could run anything else, the hardware is not "TikTok". I could run "TikTok" the software on any hardware, even if it isn't connected to the public internet, and that would not qualify it as "infrastructure", at least not in the sense that it's servicing any population.

              • yobid2038 minutes ago
                Actually they are specifically named in the law lol, i wasnt expecting that but it very clearly up front states it.
        • bjourne1 hour ago
          > to me this is the only important one. Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture, if they were to get in trouble for it, then what?

          Suppose that is true. Then why are you ok with Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or any other American oligarch wielding even more influence on US culture? When it comes down to it, it's just jingoism, isn't it? China man bad, America man good.

          • wilg1 hour ago
            no, it's reasonable for countries to want mass media their citizens use to be subject to their own government, especially when the country in question is an adversary, not a democracy, and not a particular beacon of free speech or human richts
          • 9dev1 hour ago
            That makes little sense. Why would a country be equally afraid of the influence of its citizens compared to a foreign, authoritarian regime with opposing interest? Given the choice, naturally you’ll be on the side of your own people rather than the others.
          • red_admiral1 hour ago
            > China man bad, America man good.

            America man friend of president.

          • polski-g1 hour ago
            Those individuals reside in the US, and are US citizens. They have first amendment rights to engage in those activities.

            Singaporean corporations controlled by the Chinese government in China does not have FA rights.

          • aib1 hour ago
            Exactly. They want _their_ oligarchs controlling their 99.(9)%. This ban is as close as you can get to open admittance.
      • 8note2 hours ago
        its a horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone.

        america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions. banning media is a lack of trust in americans ability to formulate opinions. what the point in having media and democracy if you dont think people can make good decisions based on it?

        • Eextra9531 hour ago
          I think this perfectly communicates why it feels so wrong that the government has banned tt. Its an implicit acknowledgement that our leaders feel that foreign influence will resonate with the public in a way that doesn't benefit the status quo.
        • fspeech1 hour ago
          So many people focus only on TikTok instead of their fellow citizens' rights that are being trampled upon. Even NYT writers happily insinuate that all will be forgotten in no time. Cutting people's social links is not benign. An American may be happily watching Italian content, and when you cut her link it doesn't follow that the Italian creators will move their content to some other platform accessible to that American. Same for Americans with foreign followers. Americans may also have trouble reconnecting with American creators. It boggles the mind that these losses are given so little thought.
        • wqaatwt57 minutes ago
          > america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions

          I’m rather confused how do you think that is somehow connected with:

          > horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone

          If you believe that then surely you must also believe that it was never “alive” in the first place?

          Americans certainly didn’t have unrestricted access to any type of media in ta past. In fact it was heavily centralized and controlled by a small number of entities. One might argue that the decentralization starting with cable television/etc. and then internet led us to where we are.

          Everyone used to be watching the same handful of television channels (which were relatively “apolitical” anyway) and a small number of available newspapers. It’s rather obvious why it was much easier to reach societal consensus on most issues compared to these days…

        • 12749 minutes ago
          Half of the people are sub-100 IQ. It's very naive to understate the stupidity of some people and their capability to do harm if mislead. Especially when it comes to weaponized social media content from a main geopolitical adversary. Letting Tiktok continue will do far more harm to democracy than banning it.
          • 37 minutes ago
            undefined
        • wilg1 hour ago
          they're not banning any media or expression though so its a non-issue
      • cameronh9010 minutes ago
        And when Meta was used to undermine our (UK) elections, we should be able to force a sale to British ownership too then presumably?
      • blackoil3 hours ago
        While I agree with your argument partially, I still find it ironic.

        It assumes that we must prevent public from accessing some thoughts/propoganda as they may not be able to make right decision themselves. This is rhyming with 1930s Germany or other authoritative regimes since then.

        • encoderer3 hours ago
          Like encouraging your wife to sleep in another man’s bed. After all, it should be fine! Do you want to prevent her from accessing some thoughts??? Let her make the right decision herself.
          • blub1 hour ago
            Social media can’t sleep in beds or other places, it doesn’t have a body.

            Actually it’s more like preventing your wife to talk to other men, just in case. We know what the world thinks about these kinds of husbands…

          • pjerem1 hour ago
            Wait what ?
            • suraci1 hour ago
              it's all about sex!
        • wilg3 hours ago
          you can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. you just cant run the app if you're china
          • sodality22 hours ago
            “You can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. You just can’t sell this book if you’re Ray Bradbury”
            • wilg1 hour ago
              analogy completely misses the point which is that there is no impact on what anyone is allowed to say
              • sodality21 hour ago
                There is an impact on the TikTok’s app to display content to American users.
                • wilg1 hour ago
                  yes exactly but not on any of tiktok's users to say what they want, which is 1000x more important than the rights of the PRC to tweak the algorithm and moderation however they like
                  • sodality21 hour ago
                    IMO the right to use TikTok in the US is actually way more important than the “right” of users to post whatever they want on it. In the same way that FB can ban you for violating content policy, and the app store can ban you for whatever reason. These are all okay because they’re all the domain of that company/entity to police. The problem is when the government steps in and forces it. I don’t think what website I can use is the domain of the government.
        • enos_feedler2 hours ago
          Even more ironic is that we have a government programming us with fears (just fears!) about what China _could_ do to justify some action they are taking. Literally running the playbook of entity they are trying to make us afraid of. Fucked up.
          • wilg1 hour ago
            doesn't have to be fears, can just be good security hygiene. and china's running a whole playbook too. welcome to geopolitics!
      • fspeech3 hours ago
        Not sure why you say "simply". There is nothing simple about it: there are issues of forced technology transfers; there is the problem that TikTok is a global platform and revenue generation is across the border. These are just things that immediately come to mind and I am sure there are more.
        • wilg3 hours ago
          selling a company is a solved problem
          • russli19933 hours ago
            [flagged]
            • Aloisius3 hours ago
              I'm sure they took note decades ago when the US first started doing it... then shrugged and continued on.
            • wilg3 hours ago
              you already posted this elsewhere and it sounds deranged here too
            • Sabinus3 hours ago
              Foreign countries are free to mandate US companies sell or leave their market. Of course, they will not like the results of that process, but they are free and able to copy the US if they like.

              >USA has showed it is perfectly okay with this daylight robbery and piracy.

              Why? They didn't steal TikTok, they forbade it from operating in the US with the current ownership.

              The rest of your comment has so many falsehoods in it I don't really know where to start.

              • suraci2 hours ago
                > They didn't steal TikTok, they forbade it from operating in the US with the current ownership.

                Are you being sarcastic?

            • encoderer3 hours ago
              [flagged]
      • pizza3 hours ago
        I’d rather have both data privacy protection through both laws and technological security AND a popular platform run by an adversary, than have neither privacy protections and only platforms that conceal their beneficiaries.
        • wilg3 hours ago
          well that doesn't really represent the situation here so it doesn't really matter what you'd prefer of those two options
          • pizza2 hours ago
            Why isn’t the latter the situation right now?
            • wilg1 hour ago
              the latter might be your debatable characterization of the situation right now, but the former was not on the table and the only reason to couple them together is to make your point
      • tkel4 hours ago
        It is the salient point. A domestic adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. In the form of Instagram/Twitter/Facebook/etc.
        • wilg3 hours ago
          the us has political and legal jurisdiction over those companies which is the entire point
          • epolanski29 seconds ago
            It also has on bytedance in US.

            As does turkey or Germany or whoever when it comes to US socials operating in their countries.

            All you need is a court order and all socials will delete whatever content is requested.

          • ternnoburn2 hours ago
            Do they? Do they actually? I'm not sure the U.S. has control sufficient to exercise meaningful jurisdiction, even if it exists on paper. Big companies have too much influence in Congress and with politicians to be meaningfully reigned in in practice.
            • snovv_crash1 hour ago
              So you don't see Zuckerberg doing a roundabout on a bunch of policies with the new administration then?
            • wilg1 hour ago
              whether or not that's true it doesn't affect the issue of our jurisdiction over a PRC-controlled app
              • tkel49 minutes ago
                I think it's a stretch to say "PRC-controlled". I think the government has influence in working with ByteDance's board, not unlike in the US. This is the propaganda that has infected the American psyche. To think every single organization in China is an arm of the big bad communists. It's quite uninformed and ahistorical and political propaganda.
          • 3 hours ago
            undefined
        • 2 hours ago
          undefined
      • __MatrixMan__2 hours ago
        That might make policy sense in a world where those same adversaries couldn't just pay a western social media company to exert the same control. But since they can, it smells much more like protecting a monopoly than anything to do with preventing control.
        • wilg1 hour ago
          you don't refuse to close one security hole because you might have another. we could make the latter illegal too! it might already be!
      • gdubs2 hours ago
        Are they not allowed to sell books in the United States? How about guns? Can they release major motion pictures? Video games?

        We have freedom of speech in this country — and for the boogeyman that China was somehow weaponizing their platform, we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.

        • sfRattan2 hours ago
          > How about guns?

          Imports of firearms and ammunition from China to the USA have been banned since 1994 [1]. IIRC Chinese companies were caught selling rifles and other gear to known gangs in California and that motivated the law.

          Firearms imports are also much more restricted generally than most other categories. More than one manufacturer has reincorporated in the United States because of the regulations.

          [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355...

          • gdubs2 hours ago
            Fair enough — was wrong on that point, and happy to be corrected.
        • EagnaIonat2 hours ago
          > we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.

          They just move to new place. Loads of online communities have died/migrated for various different reasons over the years.

          > We have freedom of speech in this country

          This doesn't impose on your freedom of speech at all.

          Just because you have the right to say anything, doesn't give you the right to say it where you want.

          • tsimionescu1 hour ago
            > This doesn't impose on your freedom of speech at all.

            By this logic, the US government should be able to ban any newspaper that is publishing articles that they don't like: it doesn't encroach on the freedom of speech of the reporters of that newspaper, they can just speak somewhere else. They don't have the right to say anything at that particular newspaper, just in general.

            Of course, in reality, banning a publication (TikToK) because you think they may publish stories that you won't like (propaganda for Chinese interests) is an obvious violation of the first ammendment and a form of government censorship.

            • wilg1 hour ago
              tiktok isn't a publication and the ease with which people can post on other platforms as well as their relationship to the platform is relevant
              • tsimionescu1 hour ago
                I agree that there are differences between a publication and a platform, but they are relatively subtle. And as long as the argument is "China through TikTok can influence which content is popular or allowed to be published at all", then that is leaning into the publisher-like aspects of TikTok, not the platform-like ones: and it is precisely these rights that are protected.

                Just to give an example of what would be concerns of the platform aspect of TikTok, that would be concerns about the ability for the app to deploy malicious code to users' phones, or the amount of data that it siphons off legally. But those are de-emphasised in favor of their control on content, which is precisely what's supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

        • beau_g1 hour ago
          I think those comparisons are poor - TikTok is service that could be used to send instantaneous information to 170 million users in the US. It's potential to cause a problem if it's controllers choose to do so is many orders of magnitude broader and faster than those examples.
        • sterlind2 hours ago
          China doesn't allow foreign corporations to operate within their borders. why should we?

          there is no First Amendment right for Chinese companies to operate within our market. there is no First Amendment right for RT to be carried on US cable networks.

          if TikTok were a website, it'd be different. it'd be one thing if the US were blackholing tiktok.com. but TikTok is an app that sells ads, and they're not entitled to sell ads to US businesses or publish on US app stores.

          • suraci2 hours ago
            > China doesn't allow foreign corporations to operate within their borders

            It's not true, just to clarify it.

            Many foreign corporations operating in China, only if they:

            1. Keep all user data within the border. 2. Cooperate with censorship

            TikTok meets the first condition in the U.S., and I think the issue lies with the second condition.

            • sterlind2 hours ago
              I could be wrong, but I thought you have to operate a subsidiary in China, which is majority Chinese-owned. for example, Azure China is operated by 21Vianet, who also owns all the infrastructure.
              • suraci1 hour ago
                Yeah, that's the part 1, all data must be within the border

                so Azure in China can only be ran by a Chinese entity

                If you look at it from the other side, it's like Tiktok must be hosted by Microsoft/Amazon but not datacenters in China

        • FranzFerdiNaN2 hours ago
          Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of a platform. Their speech isn’t limited.
          • jakelazaroff2 hours ago
            Imagine saying this if the government shut down, say, a newspaper publishing things they didn’t like. “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of a platform; the reporters can write elsewhere.”
            • pjerem2 hours ago
              Idk for the US, but where I live, newspapers have special laws that protects them more than other platforms. Pretty sure it’s the same in the US.
            • ternaryoperator2 hours ago
              Freedom of the press is guaranteed in the first amendment, "freedom of the platform" is a non-existent right.
              • tsimionescu1 hour ago
                And what makes TikTok different from a newspaper, fundamentally?

                Both are publishing stories written by others (reporters for the newspaper, subscribers for TikTok), and taking decisions on which stories to publish (through direct editorial control for the newspaper, through the algorithm + some direct editorial control for TikTok).

        • forrestthewoods2 hours ago
          Those communities can form else where. There can be another short form video platform.
          • sodality22 hours ago
            Why do they have to? And if there is, what argument is there that we should stop just at this one platform?
            • forrestthewoods2 hours ago
              Because TikTok is owned and controlled by hostile foreign country of communist totalitarians. That country would rather TikTok die than be sold to an operator they don’t control.

              The operator doesn’t necessarily have to be American. A European operator would be sufficient. But it can’t be an overtly hostile nation.

              All of these arguments have been made ad nauseum.

              All social media companies controlled by the CCP will be banned in the US. And since all tech companies in China are controlled by the CCP that means all Chinese social media products will be banned in the US.

              It’s not all that complicated. It’s not even that controversial.

              • talldatethrow1 hour ago
                Basically everything I buy now means my money is going to China. Somehow that's ok, but letting me choose to consume their app, that's ok.
                • forrestthewoods1 hour ago
                  Correct. Buying things manufactured China is not the same as a CCP controlled a social media algorithm. They're extremely different things with extremely different impacts. Thus one can be ok and one can not.

                  The issue isn't money going to CCP. The issue is data and CCP control of the algorithm.

                • wilg1 hour ago
                  yeah because the issue isn't money going to china its prc control over a major social media platform
              • sodality22 hours ago
                None of this is strong enough to justify banning speech to me. Do you think something like the Communist Manifesto should be banned in the US? Do you think someone professing the virtues of communism on a street corner should be forced to stop?
                • pjerem1 hour ago
                  Freedom of speech means that you can’t be persecuted for what you said. It doesn’t mean you are entitled to be given a megaphone.

                  You can say what you want and don’t go in prison, sure, but nobody owes you the platform.

                  • sodality21 hour ago
                    That’s like saying “you can write whatever book you want, but the government can stop it from being sold; we aren’t obligated to sell it in bookstores”. This is a terrible argument; it conflates the government’s actions with the “bookstore”. Yes, if the app store decided to ban the app, we wouldn’t have much recourse. But the government is stepping in and saying no bookstore is allowed to sell it. That is textbook censorship (no pun intended).
                  • tsimionescu1 hour ago
                    No, freedom of [edit: accidentally wrote "from" earlier] speech also means that the government can't stop you from saying it. If US citizens wants to publish pro-Chinese, anti-US propaganda in the USA, and want to constitute a company for publishing a newspaper or a social media site to do, that is protected free speech and the government should have nothing to say about it.
        • ChadBrogramer692 hours ago
          [dead]
      • crummy4 hours ago
        Was that happening or was it just something we were worried about? Maybe we could have just banned it when there was evidence it was actually occuring?
        • josephcsible3 hours ago
          Maybe we could have just closed the barn door when there was evidence the horse was actually bolting?
        • wilg3 hours ago
          nothing wrong with doing it in advance

          but yes, there is some evidence but of course its very controversial

      • GolfPopper2 hours ago
        Yeah. If you don't stop it here, where does it end? Next thing you know, you'll have a guy doing millions of dollars of business with proxies for the Russian government in the White House.
      • Pxtl3 hours ago
        By that logic Canada, Panama, and Denmark should ban X and Meta.
        • wilg3 hours ago
          those countries are not our geopolitical adversaries, but if the people of those countries want them to be considered as such, it would be reasonable to pass a similar law
          • Pxtl3 hours ago
            Trump has openly stated plans to annex them in part or whole against their will.

            That sounds pretty geopolitical adversary to me.

            • sekai1 hour ago
              Trump has also said that wind turbines harm whales.
            • wilg3 hours ago
              [flagged]
        • russli19933 hours ago
          Not even that, every country on the planet is now greenlighted to force USA companies to sell themselves or banned. Every country on the planet can take control of Apple, Tesla, Intel, Qualcomn, Amazon, Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Meta's entire company, all assets, branding, IPs, technology, code, patents, cash in accounts. Everything is up for grabs. Countries can use it to help their citizens by so much, they can end hunger, end poverty, end homelessness, enable free health care, free education, balance currency and trade, elevate tax revenues, end deficits. Protection of inventor's idea, work and assets is not important. Protection of private asset is not important. Supposed communist China only does 50% JVs, and allow foreign owners control of brands, technology, IPs, revenue and profits. The supposed capitalist USA is 100%.
        • a-priori3 hours ago
          I mean, we could be getting closer to that point. According to a recent survey, 26% of Canadians now consider the US to be a “threat” to Canada and 6% consider the US to be an “enemy”. Those numbers is up from 6% and 1% two years ago.

          https://angusreid.org/canada-51st-state-trump/

          • 2 hours ago
            undefined
      • ternnoburn2 hours ago
        I see this thought posted frequently. It makes no sense to me... what power could China exert here that wouldn't also be a bad power for anyone to exert? Surely, if they started exerting power on their platform in ways people didn't like, people would leave, right? And also, what's the path to pressure bytedance by the ccp?

        It all just smacks of protectionism and isolationism to me.

      • heresoiiixdgy3 hours ago
        God forbid the rest of the world stops wearing jeans, stops drinking coke and has declining divorce rates. They can't have TikTok at all costs. That will show em. We can't have them get brainwashed by others, we already have a monopoly on that. We need to keep it.
        • architango3 hours ago
          US social media companies have been banned in China for many years, so in fact the “brainwashing” you’re referring to has only gone in one direction until now.
          • ciselybaldwic3 hours ago
            They are probably scared their productivity rate will go down or their birthrate. They definitely know something we don't.
            • johnny223 hours ago
              if you were paying attention you'd know their birthrates have been plunging for years even after the revocation of the one child policy.
              • saturn86013 hours ago
                Its the only saving grace the US has against China. Without it, an argument can be made that the game is already over and the US has lost.
                • Sabinus3 hours ago
                  Stiff systems like whatever version of Communism the Chinese have now, with Emperor for Life Xi don't do as well with changing circumstances and the buildup their own internal contradictions as well as the flexible democracies so there is more than just China's demographic collapse in the equation.
                  • saturn86011 hour ago
                    Good point but it remains to be seen. China has seemed to look at the Soviets and 'improved' upon their design. At the same time the West has dove deeper into their downsides (corruption) with no improvement in sight. Does China really need to last forever or do they just need to outlast their rival?
          • blisterpeanuts3 hours ago
            You raise an important point. Why should a Chinese company be allowed to operate freely in the U.S. when U.S. companies offering similar services are totally banned in China? Doesn’t this violate the principles of free trade and frameworks to which the two countries have agreed?

            I’m not concerned so much about TikTok as spyware or data gathering or a vector for influencing young minds… though it is all of that, to some extent.

            The real problem is the one sided nature of the U.S.-China trade relationship.

            • roenxi1 hour ago
              I do think that the TikTok ban is being taken too lightly by the people of US. But the more interesting point is that your logic implies that China making a sensible move in banning US companies. There is a real question of why companies like Google are allowed to operate outside the US - if it is this big a deal to the US politicians it suggests their military has been using it aggressively against opponents with some success.
            • ternnoburn2 hours ago
              "Why would an adult not hit someone when that someone hits them?"

              Some people believe that not retaliating stops cycles and systems. Some of us have principles beyond the very childlike, "well, they did it first".

              If you believe state censorship is bad, you should oppose it when it is deployed, even if it's deployed against someone you think is also bad.

              Like, I think using slurs is bad. I oppose using slurs, even against people I loathe. I have a principal, and I do not violate that principle even if it would hurt people I would consider my opponents.

              Same here. My commitment to my principal that "state censorship is bad" far outweighs any feelings about China.

              • mdale1 hour ago
                Sure; but negotiations involve a give and take. You can't push things in the a direction if you just tout your purity and one side gives in and gets rolled over.

                I think some progress was made getting TikTok on US servers and the US hires etc. Maybe more transparency in how the company operated or observers within could have been good next steps. Maybe some mutual concession with some version of US media operating within China.

                Ideally finding benefit to nation states competition benefits global citizens in some way such as the green race transition to renewables is good ... Can we have privacy and democratic media race somehow? ... Maybe not possible :)

        • unethical_ban3 hours ago
          As they say on reddit, "this but unironically".

          I am shocked that so many seem to root for China pointing a mind-control weapon at hundreds of millions of people? The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.

          One doesn't have to support the existence of Instagram and Twitter to definitely not support the Chinese control of TikTok. I think the world would be better without closed-source algorithm-controlled short video feeds.

          • rtpg2 hours ago
            > The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.

            Do you believe this in your heart? Or how about this: do you believe that Europe wants China to fall? Or that the US wants China to fall?

            I feel there’s some uncontroversial stuff like China wanting absolute control over messaging about itself, in the context of avoiding organized resistance in its internal affairs. And it goes to extreme measures to do that.

            But (glibly) “we want no criticism to be mentioned of us” does not lead to “we want the US to collapse”! There’s a whole texture to the Chinese position here, one that is different from, say, Russia actually taking more or less direct control of various places during the Cold War.

            • mdale1 hour ago
              There is an element global competition no ? Controlling more of global trade is advantageous. It's not that they want others you fail; they just want a bigger pice of the pie.
          • dvngnt_2 hours ago
            you're right, but blocking the best one isn't going to sit right with consumers. if we just passed comprehensive data laws then i would be in support but one company lobbying another company to remove an app doesn't help us at all
          • coulddobetteraz3 hours ago
            [flagged]
            • Sabinus2 hours ago
              >Meta, X, Google could not come up with a better TikTok. So now they buy or ban what they can't conquer. Talk about free market.

              What makes you think that, it's just an algo and network effects.

              >I love the us vs them argument. Because it's baseless. Why don't you stop buying everything that's made in China. Let's see how far you get.

              Because that would be harmful to US consumers. Lack of short video entertainment reccomended in a particular way is not very harmful. No microwaves or fridges for a couple of years is.

              >Nobody is brainwashing anyone.

              Influence operations on social media by nation states and others is a verified and ongoing concern. The US and others have been doing this for decades. If China is not doing it via Tiktok already, they would when the invasion of Taiwan starts.

              >Except women the world over getting everything for free because they have holes. Nobody complains about that.

              Touch grass please.

              • tivert2 hours ago
                >> I love the us vs them argument. Because it's baseless. Why don't you stop buying everything that's made in China. Let's see how far you get.

                > Because that would be harmful to US consumers. Lack of short video entertainment reccomended in a particular way is not very harmful. No microwaves or fridges for a couple of years is.

                And it wouldn't be a bad thing to "stop buying everything that's made in China," but it's not something anyone can do suddenly. It would require a massive political project on par to the industrialization of China. China makes pretty much everything now (IIRC, they have 30-40% of the world's manufacturing capacity), and that is not a good thing for anyone who is not an authoritarian Chinese communist.

        • wilg3 hours ago
          what? china can continue to have cultural exports like every country, it is inevitable, it simply can't own and control tiktok
        • keepthemensbusy3 hours ago
          We need to keep the women on the independent mindfu*k or else the GDP will go down.
      • paganel2 hours ago
        Why should they? This is not the early 1900s anymore.
      • suraci3 hours ago
        lmao, it's just exactly what cpc said at the time they banning Google and Facebook

        we are the same now

        • tivert3 hours ago
          > lmao, it's just exactly what cpc said at the time they banning Google and Facebook

          The CCP is not some weird thing that's wrong 100% of the time, so the US must always do the opposite thing.

          The CCP banning Google/Facebook was wrong, but not for the reason of removing something a "geopolitical adversary has control" over, it was wrong because it was part of their extensive and illiberal censorship regime. The US has nothing similar.

          > we are the same now

          No.

          • suraci2 hours ago
            > The US has nothing similar

            this reminds me another brilliant comment:

            > China bans US businesses because it has an autocratic, ethnocratic government. The US is banning a Chinese business for obvious national security reasons.

            In the 1950s, China forced private enterprises to sell half of their shares to the state In the 1990s, it required foreign companies to establish joint ventures and share intellectual property as a condition for entering the Chinese market.

            Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism

      • russli19933 hours ago
        Simply divest? Wow u make it sound like none issue. Tiktok is invented by Chinese entrepreneurs, businessmen and engineers. The IP, the branding, the technology is all their private assets. Let's do that to all US companies, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Boeing, Qualcomn, Intel, all of them must sell themselves to owners of every country they want to operate in, Indian, Brazilian, Germany, France, every country on the planet can own a piece of Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Boeing, Qualcomn. Every country on the planet take notes, USA says this robbery and piracy in broad day light is perfectly legal and moral. So if you see a US company you like, just do the same thing, divest or ban. Owning these companies can help your country and citizens so much, can help you end poverty, homelessness, balance currency, elevate tax revenues, bring free health care and education to your citizens. I thought protection of private assets and respect for private property is the foundation of capitalism and what USA vehemently advocated for the past century, arguing against socialism and communism. The past 10 years of USA showed it robs/ban/controls private entities even harder than communists. Not even supposed communist China robs foreign entities assets, the furthest they go is 50% JVs that USA balks so hard about. And don't talk about China's situation on US internet companies. China gives you a list of requirements to operate in the country, if you meet it, you can operate. And they are technical requirements, not impossible to achieve and designed to disgust you. Bing, iCloud, AWS, Microsoft office azure, Tesla and their connected vehicles with cameras and GPS taking pictures of every Chinese street and building is available in China. Many US companies did exit Chinese market because the cost of regulatory adherence outweigh the finance gains, which may not be high due to local competition. But that is business decision, and USA can also negotiate with China to relax the regulation. There has been talk about enabling Tesla to bring FSD to China, now China should definitely not allow that because USA bans all cars made with Chinese software and hardware, China should reciprocate, banning all cars made with US hardware and software sold on Chinese roads. But I digress.

        With Tiktok, US is designed to disgust, it is not giving you an option to comply. If you don't sell yourself, you lose all the business, if you sell yourself, you lose even more business because others will get invention you created. But since USA showed this is perfectly legal, let's use this on USA companies, sell yourself or get banned. Looks like you are perfectly okay with this. Facebook was worth $25B when 15 years ago, let's force Facebook to sell itself and pay Facebook $25B, it will worth $3T today, you still won, and original inventor, the business owners still get screwed. When Apple was weak and worth millions in 80s and 90s, force Apple to sell itself. Steve Jobs gets $100M. Today, you will have $4T brand, technology, ecosystem and company. Yep, this is totally moral and totally American values.

        • wilg3 hours ago
          what country are you a citizen of out of curiosity?
          • suraci1 hour ago
            doesn't seem like an American, as there's no American exceptionalism, more like a Chinese(or other 3rd-world country) liberal disillusioned after once believing in the old US...

            We have a lot of people like that, who used to believe in America's free trade, democracy, fair competition, and innovation. I used to be one too

            now things are changing...

        • jazzyjackson1 hour ago
          Totally agree with you, I can't understand how laid back some people are with "all they had to do was sell..."

          Terrible precedent for global trade, thing is Silicon Valley pulls hard for deregulation, and it's common wisdom here that regulating tech would be slowing down the only economic sector we have that's still growing, so we cannot write any rules that might make for a fair playing field, protect Americans from data leaks and disinformation or whatever, only tool we have is ban competition.

        • ALittleLight2 hours ago
          Doesn't China actively block many American companies from doing business there?
          • muh_gradle1 hour ago
            Don't bother, it's always crickets on this one. China doesn't play by the rules in literally anything and "well that's too bad".
          • jazzyjackson1 hour ago
            From the comment you're replying to:

            >> China gives you a list of requirements to operate in the country, if you meet it, you can operate.

            Some US companies (like Google) choose not to operate there because they don't want to put up with harassment and intellectual property theft that comes with having offices on the mainland.

      • farts_mckensy2 hours ago
        You are not the arbiter of what is salient. Jingoistic rhetoric will not save you in the end. The ruling class of the US does not care whether you live or die. Blind loyalty is moronic. State censorship is bad. If you disagree with that, you are the enemy. Period. Liberation for all.
        • wilg1 hour ago
          these are just random irrelevant or incorrect platitudes
    • blackoil4 hours ago
      These bans are more to do with geopolitics and economic interest than security. e.g. Blanket ban on Huawei including accessing TSMC, Samsung fabs is more to protect Apple and Qualcomm.
    • plantwallshoe3 hours ago
      Of all the bleak things in our world right now this one doesn’t even crack the top 500
    • Vegenoid51 minutes ago
      Do people believe that the US government's control over Instagram/Twitter/whatever are similar to the level of control China's government has over TikTok?

      I'm not that educated on the subject (I think most people who are making claims either way about this aren't), but all my priors indicate to me that China's government collects data from and controls content (to be shown only to the western populace) in TikTok much more than the US government with US social media companies.

      I understand the comparison, but I think the magnitude of the problem is very likely to be much higher with TikTok.

    • fuzzfactor2 hours ago
      It's an app.

      Some money could possibly be made by some people legitimately.

      The bleakest part is people who didn't recognize how extreme a gamble it is if that's what somebody wants to pin their entire livelihood on.

      Whether they wrote the app or not.

      The "house" just drew the winning hand, and all the gamblers lost everything they had on the table at once.

      That can happen at any time, and almost always happens eventually, that's why they call it gambling.

      It's not so bad if you don't bet everything.

      • llamaboy49 minutes ago
        You’re obviously not involved in the content creation world. My partners main income source is selling a product via Instagram. While she puts a lot of effort into building her brand on other platforms to diversify as she recognises the risk, once you have an established and profitable audience on one platform you’d be silly not to continue to put effort into growing that. Also what works on one platform is different to the others, it’s not a simple copy and paste. People generally are aware of this and try to diversify, but it’s not as easy as you might think.

        Posts that get 5m+ views on one platform may only get 5000 on another.

    • tsimionescu2 hours ago
      Those arguments have nothing to do with why TikTok was banned. The banning is purely a geopolitical move. TikTok is the only major social network that is (hugely!) popular in Europe and North America that is not controlled by the USA - and even worse for US geopolitical ambitions, it has major ties with China.

      This is not some conspiracy theory: this is 100% of the official reason that Congress voted on this. They fear that China has influence through TikTok into the US public, and could use this to sway public opinion [unsaid: just as the US does with Facebook or Twitter]. They also fear that China could surreptitiously spy on high-value targets through the TikTok app - which is why it was forbidden two years ago already from any device used in doing business with the US Government, including the business phones or BYOD phones of all federal employees and contractors.

      Interestingly, part of the fear of influence ties back to Gaza. Here is a quote from Mitt Romney about this [0]:

      > SENATOR ROMNEY: A small parenthetical point, which is some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts. So I’d note that’s of real interest, and the President will get the chance to make action in that regard.

      This is exactly the sort of issue that the US fears: losing control of the public narrative, especially in the USA, but more broadly as well.

      [0] https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-mccain-i...

      • yread56 minutes ago
        Interesting that a Romainian sounding username wouldn't mention the mess with Romanian presidential election where tiktok played a major role. The threat seems very real
        • tsimionescu14 minutes ago
          The Romanian elections were a debacle in many other ways. So far at least, our authorities have done nothing to actually arrest the fascist lunatic that almost won, nor to bring any concrete evidence that he did anything other than breaking campaign finance laws by paying for TikTok like any other influencer might while not declaring this money in his campaign fund disclosures.

          Actually, they didn't even bring any evidence of that, except for the fact that he claims in official documents and public appearances that his campaign cost 0, which is such a bold faced lie that it barely needs dismissing.

          But no, I don't share the court's apparent opinion that, but for TikTok, this lunatic wouldn't have won. All suggestions are that, will he be allowed to run again (which is theoretically the current status quo, him not having been put under any sort of judicial control!), he will win again, despite his vastly diminished TikTok presence. Turns out, to my great personal sadness, that many of my countrymen, idioticaly, actually liked the fascist and weren't (just) manipulated by TikTok.

    • disambiguation3 hours ago
      You can always seek asylum in China if you want protection from the "evil American tech monopolies".
    • swasheck4 hours ago
      as a parent who has attempted to navigate the complexities of social media and mental health and social norms and conformity, social media absolutely has an effect on how the emerging generations interact with their surrounding environments, and in my experience, all been negative. I understand this is colloquial, but the cloak wheel evidence of all of my peers additionally supports this. i’m sad, not that this has been banned and gone dark, but at the emotional and social uproar that this seems to have created.
    • maeil4 hours ago
      To an extent, yes, some of the arguments absolutely apply to other platforms as well. But others don't. You never saw such platforms directly impact elections as much, having Russian operations have as big as an impact as they have had on TikTok in e.g. Eastern Europe. Of course they tried running campaigns in the past on Facebook as well, but not with as high of an impact, and after they got caught the platforms have put in a reasonable amount of effort to crack down on them. TikTok knowingly turns a blind eye, and unlike with the US platforms, Russia can be much more blatant.

      Think it would be pretty reasonable for other countries to ban such platforms too though, as China has understandably already been doing for over a decade. Facebook of course played a big role in genocide in Myanmar, so I wouldn't dare say the US platforms are necessarily better.

      • ascorbic1 hour ago
        But Russia was using a platform that they don't control for all of these.

        Meanwhile we have a member of the inner circle of the US President-elect using the social network that he owns to explicitly attempt to depose the leader of the UK, to support violent extremists, and to support far right parties across Europe. TikTok never did any of that.

        > https://www.reuters.com/world/musk-examines-how-oust-starmer...

      • MichaelRo4 hours ago
        >> having Russian operations have as big as an impact as they have had on TikTok in e.g. Eastern Europe

        I suppose you refer to this: https://theconversation.com/why-romanias-election-was-annull...

        "The Romanian constitutional court annulled the country’s presidential election on December 6.

        This decision is unprecedented in Romanian history. It followed the declassification of documents by Romanian intelligence services that exposed evidence of voting manipulation through social media platforms, illegal campaign financing on TikTok, cyber-attacks orchestrated by external forces and suspected Russian interference."

        • miohtama2 hours ago
          This goes to European Court of Human Rights. It may find out that cancelling election results was unnecessary.

          https://www.ejiltalk.org/electoral-dysfunction-romanias-elec...

          > Here, the opposite could be alleged- that Romania took action, but the action was too immediate and drastic than was called for in the circumstances. Considering how the Court expressed a critical view of overly drastic measures in cases such as the above-mentioned Kermiova v Azerbaijan, it is possible that the Court could similarly show a disdain for the expeditious actions taken by the domestic judiciary in Romania.

          Also apparently most voters voted this candidate because of economic reasos, not due to Russian proximity.

          • wqaatwt52 minutes ago
            Most voters didn’t vote for that candidate though. They voted for a more moderate and not pro-Russia independent who was effectively guaranteed to win in the next round.

            Establishment parties obviously didn’t like that outcome.

        • paganel2 hours ago
          There is still no proof that the powers that be have come up with, to the contrary, it was proven that one of the governing parties (PNL) was paying money for the online campaign of mr. Georgescu (supposedly the “extremist” candidate who had made use of TikTok). It is all a farce and it has helped kill democracy (or what had been left of it, anyway) in this country.
      • tkel3 hours ago
        Meanwhile, domestic spending on corrupting elections is like comparing an ocean to a raindrop. Mike Bloomberg spent $300 million on ads/influencing elections in 2020.
        • Sabinus2 hours ago
          Americans convincing their fellow citizens to do things is a very different proposition to foreign governments convincing American citizens to do things.
          • marcusramberg1 hour ago
            True. Clearly your billionaire ruling class has your best interest at heart, so this is fine. /s
            • leeoniya49 minutes ago
              let's be honest here. billionaires are the ruling class wherever they exist.
    • safety1st4 hours ago
      I'm going to quote a CBS News article here because I don't feel Congress' arguments in favor of banning TikTok are being well represented. You can agree with them or disagree with them but everyone should at least understand them accurately.

      TLDR TikTok is not comparable to the other services you mentioned because ByteDance is required to comply with Chinese intelligence, and China has made many public statements in recent years to the effect that it is a hostile, rival power to the United States. Allowing ByteDance to operate TikTok is granting a hostile government a tool to influence US public opinion as well as to track the locations and text messages of 170 million American citizens. Congress gave ByteDance the option to divest control so that they could get paid and TikTok could continue to operate, ByteDance refused.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-tiktok-being-banned-supr...

      Why did Congress want to ban TikTok?

      U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that TikTok threatens national security because the Chinese government could use it as a vehicle to spy on Americans or covertly influence the U.S. public by amplifying or suppressing certain content.

      The concern is warranted, they said, because Chinese national security laws require organizations to cooperate with intelligence gathering. FBI Director Christopher Wray told House Intelligence Committee members last year that the Chinese government could compromise Americans' devices through the software.

      As the House took up the divest-or-ban law in April 2024, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, compared it to a "spy balloon in Americans' phones." Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said that lawmakers learned in classified briefings "how rivers of data are being collected and shared in ways that are not well-aligned with American security interests."

      "Why is it a security threat?" Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said Friday. "If you have TikTok on your phone currently, it can track your whereabouts, it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."

      If the Chinese government gets its hands on that information, "it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat," Hawley said.

      • do_not_redeem3 hours ago
        "If you have Facebook on your phone currently, it can track your whereabouts, it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."

        If the United States government gets its hands on that information, "it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat," Hawley (should have) said.

        • wqaatwt48 minutes ago
          And your point is? I mean you might agree or disagree but obviously the problem was a foreign entity controlling it and not the tracking part.

          Also the keystroke part seem technically entirely not true and location is only partially correct.

        • Sabinus2 hours ago
          The US government is motivated to have their citizens content and productive.

          The Chinese government is motivated to have US citizens angry and unproductive.

          While productivity and happiness are not the same thing, I am personally far less worried about how my government would influence me than how China would influence me.

          • ascorbic1 hour ago
            Do you think X was trying to make US citizens angry or content?
          • sterlind2 hours ago
            I'm quite worried about both, but at least I can (in theory) vote on my US overlords, at least.
      • xbmcuser3 hours ago
        All those arguments are bullshit as most of this data is now being sold by data brokers by American companies to who ever wants to buy China or otherwise. This ban was because unlike western media and social platforms the narrative was not under their control. It is ironic that Americans talk about freedoms that they have compared to Chinese but are willingly giving up more and more of these to their own government.
        • wqaatwt45 minutes ago
          > the narrative was not under their control

          Is the narrative on other platforms under their control? What does that even mean? US hardly has coherent narrative these days anyway or at least it changes every 4 years.

          Regardless what benefits can you see in allowing the CCP to shape US public opinion in any way?

      • aprilthird20214 hours ago
        > Allowing ByteDance to operate TikTok is granting a hostile government a tool to influence US public opinion

        I have always and will always say that the government does not have the sole right to influence me as a US citizen, and it is my right to slurp up "influence" from whoever and wherever I want to. The idea that Americans are too stupid to ingest whatever information is out there (edited or unedited, curated or not, propaganda or not) for the sake of democracy is a threat to the very idea of democracy itself.

        The very fact that this argument has gained traction is the worst outcome of this entire debacle. I never ever ever thought I'd see Americans cheering that the government should limit the ability of their own fellow citizens to access information, and here we are.

        • secstate4 hours ago
          I don't know how old you are, or what your lived experience has been. But the US did not invent the idea of democracy, nor did anyone promise us that democracy could actually work.

          What the United States has accomplish over the last 200 or so years is remarkable, but it's colossally myopic to believe that the US has never curtailed the rights of it's citizens in the name of security. The OSS was never legal. The CIA definitely should not be legal. And lord only knows what the NSA does. But I promise you that restricting access to a Chinese mobile app is not the most egregious thing the United States Government has ever done.

        • ISL3 hours ago
          TikTok can still serve data to the US, it just can't list its apps in US app stores.
        • listenallyall1 hour ago
          I agree with your first paragraph - but people went pretty berserk when (supposedly) Russia was influencing US elections via social media. RT news channel was banned, the reasoning being it was Russian propaganda. Lots of people supported Facebook and Twitter, working with the government, silencing anything Russian back around the 2016 and 2020 elections. Did you?
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • rvz4 hours ago
      It is just an app and this ban was going to happen and TikTok had years to prepare for it and change. Another app will take its place.

      This is the perfect time for Twitter / X to relaunch Vine again.

      > Rather than have some sort of further regulation for what data any application can collect and present to Americans, we've just brought the hammer down on the millions of people that use this application for their livelihood.

      That's why we have our existing regulators to issue fines against Meta, Google (YouTube), X, Snap, etc when they violate their user's data in the billions.

      > Truly bleak.

      Life in India appears to be functioning well after their TikTok ban with its 1BN users so even if this is temporary, it is not the end of the world.

      This is a chance for TikTok users in the US to reflect on their addictions and hopefully change for the better. There is life after TikTok.

    • bufferoverflow3 hours ago
      > but the same arguments also apply to Instagram/Twitter/Whatever.

      No, they do not. These are US products, not the foreign communist party psyops project.

      • ternnoburn2 hours ago
        You use these words like they are axiomatically evil.

        Like, "it's a foreign project"... so is my Nintendo. Are you afraid or worried about foreign things? A lot of the world does a lot of things better than the U.S.

        "It's a communist party project"... first of all, plenty of great communist projects out there, and the Chinese communist party is really only a very very narrow slice of communism so your brush is absolutely over broad. But second, so what? What do you own that didn't pass through China in some capacity?

        "It's a psyop"... it's an app with funny videos on it. I think you need to set that tinfoil hat down and pause a bit. Does it have a different cultural root used to moderate it? Sure! Are they making moderation decisions I would make? No. Does that make it psyop? Of course not. Don't be absurd.

        • audunw1 hour ago
          There’s some serious false equivalence here.

          Is Xbox prevented from competing with Nintendo in Japan, under similar conditions as Nintendo competes with Xbox in USA?

          Are there representatives of the Japanese government sitting within Nintendos offices overlooking what Nintendo is doing? Is that government run by a single party?

          China doesn’t allow US social media apps, mostly because they want extreme control over the content on their side of the firewall. But probably also because they know that US intelligence services could force the US social media companies to give them access to information or make changes to their code.

          So it’s utter madness and ridiculous naive to allow Chinese companies unfettered access to the US market when we know that the parent company is forced to be under direct supervision of the communist party of China, and we know that the party and the PLA along with its intelligence services are essentially one and the same entity.

          At the very least this gives Chinese companies undue advantage in the US market. It’s much easier for them to leverage the code they’re written in both the Chinese and the US market, making them more efficient and thus letting them undercut US companies over time.

          I can’t believe how naive nearly all of the comments defending TikTok are.

          (Sure the “psyop” part of the other comment is a bit much, but I took it as hyperbole and I think most readers would)

        • wqaatwt42 minutes ago
          That’s a weirdly obtuse argument to make.
    • blackeyeblitzar2 hours ago
      TikTok lied under oath about what they do with user data. Also the requirements they have for their managers and executives amount to them operating as an unregistered foreign agent, since staff are literally required to uphold China’s national interests:

      https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths...

      You combine that with the lack of reciprocal access for American and European social media apps to the Chinese market, the mental health issues TikTok causes, the lack of safeguards in TikTok that inexplicably Douyin has (China’s TikTok from the same parent company), and on and on - banning isn’t just justified but the only sane thing for all countries that aren’t China to do.

    • KikoHeit3 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • sodality22 hours ago
        Do we ban propaganda in the US now? Or do we educate people out of believing it?
        • zbobet20122 hours ago
          We've banned foreign ownership of traditional media channels since the 30s. We did not ban the propaganda but we did deplatform it.
          • sodality22 hours ago
            Federally regulated airwave media aside, this is the internet. Telling the company they cannot operate in the US because of the content of the messages that might proliferate on it is a dangerous precedent. If you’re really claiming that the internet should be regulated as much as TV, I fear for that future
      • bamboozled2 hours ago
        What do you think US based products will now be used for ?

        Healthy political discourse ?

      • colordrops2 hours ago
        If shedding lightning the genocide of the Palestinian people is "antisemitism", then yes.

        https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...

        For the down voters, what exactly is the claim here? That everyone on earth is inherently antisemitic, like it's in our DNA? What exactly do the Chinese have against Jews?

    • che_shirecat4 hours ago
      how can the US government just ban an app? has this ever happened before in US history? what gives the government the right to tell US citizens what apps they can and can't use? this is some North Korea tier behavior you expect to see from authoritarian governments panicking when they lose control over the narrative
      • secstate4 hours ago
        I'm sure there's case law all over the place, but effectively the Surpreme Court unanimously decided that the US definitely has a right to protect itself from foreign influence. This is diplomacy.

        And for anyone living in North Korea who ever has a chance to read your comment, I'm sorry, this person has no idea what it means to live in a police state under a belligerent dictator.

        • suraci3 hours ago
          a police state
      • jltsiren3 hours ago
        The US government is often eager to impose sanctions on foreign entities it doesn't like. TikTok ban is fundamentally no different from some of the more controversial sanctions, such as those imposed on Cuba and Iran. The only exceptional part is that this time the average American sees the effect in their daily life.
      • Aloisius4 hours ago
        There's nothing special about being an app.

        And the right comes from their Constitutional power to regulate foreign commerce. The US has banned American companies from doing business with various foreign entities for a while, though it really picked up after 1990.

      • in-pursuit4 hours ago
        Grindr was forcibly divested, so yes, it has happened
      • derektank3 hours ago
        Father Coughlin's periodical Social Justice was denied a mailing permit during World War II for airing pro-Nazi material (such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) under the authority of the Espionage Act of 1917, which limited its distribution to news stands in the Boston area. I don't think America has faced a political rival like China since the Soviet Union; not sure if there were any restrictions on the distribution of Soviet software in the late 80s.
        • tivert2 hours ago
          > I don't think America has faced a political rival like China since the Soviet Union; not sure if there were any restrictions on the distribution of Soviet software in the late 80s.

          I doubt there were, because it would have been moot: the Soviets were so far behind on computer technology that they didn't really make anything anyone would want.

          But more generally, the US was a lot smarter about trade with adversaries during the Cold War. There were significant restrictions on trade with the Communist Bloc that limited the kinds of entanglements we now have with China. The US got really stupid and overconfident after the Cold War ended, and that's only slowly starting to change (and this TikTok "ban" is a welcome part of that).

          • selimthegrim1 hour ago
            I think they were too busy ripping off VMS and mainframe software to send anything the other direction except Tetris
      • tivert3 hours ago
        > how can the US government just ban an app? has this ever happened before in US history? what gives the government the right to tell US citizens what apps they can and can't use?

        Being a government. They also get to tell you want kind of guns your allowed to have, what kinds of medicines you can take, and how much gas your car uses, and how your home has to be built.

        Welcome to the real world, is this your first time here?

        • sodality21 hour ago
          None of those obviously correlate to the kinds of websites you’re allowed to visit. The issue is that it’s awfully close to the kind of speech you are “permitted” to be exposed to, which is a slippery slope.
    • epigramx2 hours ago
      It's the same country that allows a practical monopoly of NVIDIA on GPUs and Intel on CPU (or at least an oligopoly), and then pretend "foreigners are out to get us". It gets one to know one.
  • firefoxd2 hours ago
    This morning I felt the urge to download TikTok for the first time. I did, but I didn't bother creating an account.

    There is a passage in the book Life of Pi, where Pi's family is gathered and ready to leave India for Canada. And his mother does something out of the ordinary:

    > The day before our departure she pointed at a cigarette wallah and earnestly asked, "Should we get a pack or two?"

    > Father replied, "They have tobacco in Canada. And why do you want to buy cigarettes? We don't smoke."

    > Yes, they have tobacco in Canada-but do they have Gold Flake cigarettes? Do they have Arun ice cream? Are the bicycles Heroes? Are the televisions Onidas? Are the cars Ambassadors? Are the bookshops Higginbothams'? Such, I suspect, were the questions that swirled in Mother's mind as she contemplated buying cigarettes.

    Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it. Will I use it if it is reinstated? Probably not. But I downloaded it anyway the same way Mrs Gita Patel wanted to buy cigarettes. It wasn’t about need or use. It was about the loss.

    I would stand behind a tiktok ban if it was for the right reasons. But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.

    • sirisaysgpt1 hour ago
      There is a statement from India’s information technology ministry, after 20 Indian soldiers died during border skirmish with China. When India banned TikTok in 2020 [0]

      > Chinese mobile apps were stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data.

      > The compilation of such data, and its mining and profiling by elements hostile to India is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures

      [0] https://apnews.com/article/bd02ecd62ff9da6b1301868f0308e297

      • potamic27 minutes ago
        If they were really concerned about privacy, they would strengthen privacy laws. Adopt a GDPR like framework with opt-in consent and force platforms to implement a GrapheneOS like model with mock permissions and scoped consent. Banning apps is just a veiled attempt to appease other interests.
      • pixelatedindex1 hour ago
        India is also an authoritarian government, is that something to celebrate? Also it is hilarious that they complain about TikTok but when you live in India, you realize that half their mobile phones themselves are from Chinese manufacturers. Some of them have Indian manufacturing units but it doesn’t take much scrutiny to realize that this is all political theater.
        • rsanek26 minutes ago
          huge false equivalency. true India is maybe not a model image of a democracy but they are way more free than China. take a look at the freedom house reports for more details.
        • FeistySkink21 minutes ago
          This is whataboutism.
    • qingcharles39 minutes ago
      > Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it.

      This, to me, is a weird stance. On what grounds did you advocate against it?

      I just had to create a new account tonight after the ban[0] to keep using it. When you first start TikTok you might be presented with a wave of seemingly crap, bizarre or boring videos, but after several minutes of liking and watching the good stuff the algorithm very quickly starts serving you some excellent content.

      There is some really, really great, really smart content on TikTok. I have always advocated for TikTok on those grounds.

      [0] my accounts are all on USA servers and you can't log into them even through a VPN

      • incoming121117 minutes ago
        I find the hard core defenders of tiktok, such as yourself, weird. I know for a fact you get propaganda videos shoved in between your feed of 'good stuff' that you enjoy watching, but I know you wont admit that, or downplay it or say you can scroll past it. It doesn't change the fact the platform is used by the CCP to push a narrative, and while it might not work on you, there's some 120m users in America on TT. That's an awful lot of people who are being fed bullshit and lies.

        > my accounts are all on USA servers

        Keep telling yourself that ;)

      • x3n0ph3n333 minutes ago
        Not OP, but the users of it I know my person seem hypermobilized by what I consider brainrot ideologies amd generally seem to have highly destabilized psychologies.
      • ThrowawayTestr34 minutes ago
        >On what grounds did you advocate against it?

        It's owned by the Chinese government and I don't trust the Chinese government.

    • reedf12 hours ago
      Make no mistake - it conforms to manufactured consent.
      • imgabe48 minutes ago
        The only difference is the manufacturer. But this is an important difference.
    • xandrius41 minutes ago
      If you're on iPhone that might make sense but on Android there is no need, lots of ways to get access to it after you moved to Canada, if you ever want to pick up smoking.
    • whoitwas1 hour ago
      I would like to understand your position. China doesn't allow US apps. If Chinese apps are allowed, then China has a big advantage over USA.

      Do you understand what kind of information can be derived from 150 million smart phones?

      • lmz1 hour ago
        Is this supposed to be China only or should the rest of the world also be suspicious and ban e.g. Meta services especially since they don't have any competing service that is popular in the US?
        • whoitwas19 minutes ago
          Non allied nations should absolutely ban US apps. Additionally, all government devices should have strict security features. It would be wise to also protect certain places from all electronic monitoring.
        • darkwater1 hour ago
          Oh but we are allies! The USA will never ever use the information gathered on allies for their own profit!
          • fulafel54 minutes ago
            Also Twitter (Trump/Musk) would never push for regime changes in Europe.

            (For anyone out of the loop, see https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-contr...)

            • imgabe46 minutes ago
              Stop. This is stupid. People are allowed to have opinions on politics in other countries. Every other country in the world sure as hell isn’t shy about opining on US elections. Then you want to act all indignant if the US opines on your elections? Fuck off.
              • kalleboo30 minutes ago
                The thing is that Elon Musk is not just some guy with an opinion. He's some guy who has an opinion and owns a major social media platform where he tweaks the algorithm to serve his own purposes, similar to what TikTok is being accused of.
                • whoitwas3 minutes ago
                  Donald Trump also created his own media platform. It's a pillar of the cult. Without them, they can't keep people fearful and misinformed.
                • imgabe22 minutes ago
                  Yeah, and a lot of people opining on US elections had media platforms of their own, or were heads of state or otherwise influential.

                  Too bad. Sucks that you got beat at your own game.

              • fulafel40 minutes ago
                I was talking about what agendas the powers that control the TikTok/Twitter/Meta might have, not (only) protesting the opinion.

                And in this case they are known to be exceptionally ruthless and part of Trump's administration.

        • red_admiral1 hour ago
          I presume meta is banned in China.
        • sekai1 hour ago
          > Meta services especially since they don't have any competing service that is popular in the US

          Meta won't tinker with the algorithm to push propaganda. TikTok will.

          • mirzap49 minutes ago
            Excuse me, what? They do it all the time. Vaccines and Israel's genocide are just the tip of the iceberg of the propaganda machine broadcast through Meta's services. Make no mistake, this is not about China.

            TikTok had a huge negative impact on special interest groups that want to continue to allow the holocaust of our days to continue happening and the genocidal state to continue to behave with impunity.

            The U.S. is already infiltrated by people working for foreign interests. The thing is, it's not infiltrated by China's or Russia's operatives.

      • necovek1 hour ago
        One is a "bastion of democracy", and another is the "center of human rights violation".

        Would you not expect the rules to be different?

        If it's only about reciprocity and global hegemony, well then...

        • whoitwas13 minutes ago
          Bytedance chose this by not doing as requested.

          I wouldn't refer to USA as very democratic or China as a center of human rights violation.

          If there is no blanket ban, there would have to be many laws, rules, regulations and restrictions prohibiting the software from government buildings, etc.

          In addition to the data points: contacts, location, audio, video, etc, malicious actors can learn a lot through deduction. That's before any sort of manipulation.

        • unknownsky58 minutes ago
          Are you saying the United States is a bastion of democracy? It's not even classified as a full democracy. The list of full democracies are Canada, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mauritius.

          United States is classified as a flawed democracy. Partly because sweeping decisions like this one are made by Supreme Court Justices who nobody voted for and who hold their position for life.

          Or maybe that's what you meant and you were being sarcastic with the quotation marks around "bastion of democracy"?

          • mirzap41 minutes ago
            In almost every country, the President or the Parliament selects Supreme Court Justices. In some countries, the President picks x, and the Parliament picks y. They don't have terms. Direct democracy does not make sense when selecting justices.
        • Fnoord56 minutes ago
          Said 'bastion of democracy' is a flawd democracy [1] who voted in a president who allegedly (facepalm) initiated a coup and got away with it. Also, a convicted criminal.

          You could say it is a bastion of liberty but I'm from Europe and women here have reasonable abortion and sexuality rights.

          [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Inde...

  • jchook2 hours ago
    Unreal. Land of Freedom bans Social Media app that runs on US servers, on its own terms, with censorship teams staffed by dozens of ex-US State officials[1].

    Amazing that Congress will see bipartisan action on this issue before any of the other much more important issues.

    It absolutely destroys criticisms of China banning Facebook, etc.

    1. https://www.mintpressnews.com/tiktok-chinese-trojan-horse-ru...

    • _bin_2 hours ago
      it's a trade war response to china's long history of walling non-chinese apps off from their billion-odd-user market while happily collecting users, data, and ad revenue from their own apps in other countries. if china removes all limitations on US tech platforms and ceases exploiting our open-by-default policy, we can talk lifting restrictions. until then, all chinese tech services should be banned.

      basically china's entire tech industry was built on the back of creating an artificially constrained market where foreign competitors with superior products were not allowed to compete. that is, everything that wasn't built off outright theft of American tech. that could have been hundreds of billions of dollars of increased market cap and returns to the investing public, hundreds of billions that china effectively stole.

      • Stephen_0xFF1 hour ago
        In a way you have to hand it to China for this master play. Globalization really complicates economies. China became the world’s factory because it produced products for a fraction of the cost, but it didn’t let the West in to provide services and products built by white collar workers into their economy. It copied and made sure that the services and products were produced by Chinese budding middle class workers. Now you can argue they’re on even footing with the West. I agree with you. They caught up and the handicap should be removed. They want their cake and to eat it too.
      • dehrmann1 hour ago
        Somewhere I heard that there would have been much less drama around the TikTok ban if the US had framed it as tit-for-tat punishment for not allowing US social media platforms in China.
        • jchook1 hour ago
          Going for a tit-for-tat with China on censorship is so hypocritical for the US it undermines its entire global persona.
          • t-317 minutes ago
            Nobody outside NATO buys the whole "Mr Justice F. Eagle" shtick anyway though. People inside the US have been raised on anti-China for hundreds of years (yellow journalism never died) and are ready to accept anything to stop the "bad guys" from winning.
            • jimkleiber2 minutes ago
              Very few countries have any power to control external influence on a social media platform. They don't have much ability to create or distribute a local solution so they have to import one. So when you say those outside NATO don't buy the whole shtick, part of that is they don't have the luxury to do so. They almost have to import such things or just not have them.
          • TeaBrain1 hour ago
            What would be the offended principle that makes going tit-for-tat with China "hypocritical"?
          • surfaceofthesun48 minutes ago
            I disagree with the hypocrisy argument. The US government tried to clamp down on Covid misinformation during a pandemic, with a declared emergency and there was pushback that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court [1].

            The US does plenty of sketchy shit, but it has nothing on the surveillance state imposed by the CCP, nor is it empowered to suppress information in the same manner.

            The CCP’s censorship is so heavy handed that others have tried to weaponize it, as discussed recently here:

            Tokyo University Used "Tiananmen Square" Keyword to Block Chinese Admissions [2].

            ———

            [1] - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca...

            [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42355586

            • krainboltgreene14 minutes ago
              I did a FIOA request on myself and got back data. I’m no one.

              The US also spread COVID antivax information.

      • MIA_Alive2 hours ago
        just banning isn't a good idea. Chinese companies should be forced to give technology transfers.
        • 9dev1 hour ago
          Now that was the entire point of this, remember? The offer was to sell to an American entity, or be banned. They didn’t want to sell, so here we are.
    • sidcool2 hours ago
      Wasn't the concern of data being siphoned off to China? Even India has banned it. Where does freedom come into picture here?
      • ascorbic2 hours ago
        What do you mean "even India" has banned it? India is notorious for its censorship and is rated near the bottom of the World Press Freedom Index. Being in that company is absolutely not something the US should aspire to.
      • surfaceofthesun44 minutes ago
        I think the better framing is that ByteDance refused to comply with US regulations and spin off TikTok.

        If the EU decided WhatsApp should be spun off from Meta (for any number of legitimate reasons) to continue operating there, we wouldn’t claim that the EU banned the app.

      • sillysaurusx2 hours ago
        I wouldn’t mind my data being siphoned off to China. It’s not even clear that if China had all of our data then it would meaningfully change world events.

        Freedom means freedom from censorship. I can’t think of an equivalent event that’s happened in my lifetime in the US. "India did it too" isn’t exactly a strong rallying cry.

        That said, we’ll live. Hopefully our blind trust that there were security concerns ends up being worth something.

        • jchook2 hours ago
          Arguably China has won the day with the massive migration to RedNote.
          • ffsm82 hours ago
            > massive migration

            You're in a bubble if you think there is a massive migration happening to an unlocalized app .

            • sillysaurusx1 hour ago
              Not at all. There are hundreds of thousands of US users. Most of the content I see is localized and tailored for English. There’s even an auto translate feature. They’re very welcoming and nice, and encourage us to post. Most of them are just showing their houses and what it’s like to live in China.

              It was a pleasant surprise. That said, I’m not too interested in endless house tours, so I’m going to see what kind of content there is when things settle down. That’s still a migration though, at least for me.

              • dkjaudyeqooe1 hour ago
                It's meant as a joke of sorts, not a migration. From the NYT:

                "Sure, there are the people calling themselves “TikTok refugees” and joining Xiaohongshu, a Chinese social media app, as a half-joking protest of the U.S. government’s decision to ban TikTok on national security grounds. (The joke part is: OK, Congress, you want to stop us from using a sketchy Chinese social media app? We’ll download an even sketchier Chinese social media app and use that instead.)"

                https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/technology/what-if-no-one...

                https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/arts/tiktok-red-note-chin...

              • rayval1 hour ago
                What is impressive to me as a software developer is that the RedNote engineering team added a Translate item to the system, at scale, within a matter of days. It works flawlessly.
            • jchook1 hour ago
              You have data?
      • matsemann1 hour ago
        I feel the same concerns for which US bans tiktok are valid for EU and fb/meta/x/twitter/google.

        How do we know they're not siphoning our EU data to the US, or controlling what the algorithm shows us to influence politics?

      • jchook2 hours ago
        Was it? What was the real concern? And can you prove it?
    • imgabe40 minutes ago
      China also bans TikTok. That should tell you everything you need to know about whether they believe it is a positive influence.
      • sschueller32 minutes ago
        China also has a firewall, are we going to do that too? I guess that is one day to become communist, just copy them tit for tat...
        • imgabe28 minutes ago
          Let’s say you and I are adversaries. Or maybe just competitors. I invite you for a meal. But I won’t eat the meal myself. I only want you to eat it.

          Do you think that’s going to be good for you?

          • sschueller25 minutes ago
            Basically how I feel as a European with the US sitting on the other side of the table.
            • imgabe18 minutes ago
              What does the US offer Europe that they don’t use themselves?
    • timeon11 minutes ago
      > It absolutely destroys criticisms of China banning Facebook, etc.

      What is that criticisms about? US and EU should ban that too.

  • vunderba5 hours ago
    So I have a relatively large extended family covering a wide age range and we talk pretty frequently in a shared SMS group - most of them have noted the ban with a passing level of irritation but nobody's "freaking out" like if you lost access to a platform like Facebook, Twitter, or Discord that's more oriented around communication rather than consumption.

    I understand that people spend a lot of time doomscrolling on it, but even with millions of daily users the optimistic side of me really wants to believe that it won't affect anyone's mental health in any measurable way.

    • andrewflnr5 hours ago
      That's weird, my optimistic side is hoping it'll have a noticeable positive effect on people's mental health.
      • doom24 hours ago
        Maybe once they also ban American propaganda on American social media platforms.
        • bearjaws4 hours ago
          I feel like I see so much negative, anti-America news I am not sure what propaganda you are even talking about. It's all over Reddit, Twitter, and TikTok. I would say Reels is suspiciously missing unless you subscribe to people directly.
          • saturn86012 hours ago
            How old are you? The younger generation grew up post 9/11, post the great recession, post the COVID lockdowns. There has never been a time of economic stability. Combine that with being informed of world events at lightning speed, Its naturally going to lead to pessimism.
            • fastball2 hours ago
              They weren't talking about pessimism, they were talking about propaganda.
              • saturn86012 hours ago
                The propaganda sticks because its rooted in some truth.
          • paganel2 hours ago
            The “we are at war with China” propaganda, among other things.
        • tkel3 hours ago
          Yeah for real. Boomer brains are so melted by anti-communist red scare china-bad propaganda that they can't see the problem is even worse for social media companies located in the US.
      • croes1 hour ago
        Because the mindless videos they get on YouTube and such are better?
    • porridgeraisin5 hours ago
      There won't really be a noticeable effect IMO. It was banned in India a few years ago, everyone pretty much instantly moved to reels/youtube shorts. I don't know how creators managed, but the consumption just moved to another app.

      Nothing specific to TikTok either. PUBG mobile was also banned here around the same time, and people just moved to Call of Duty mobile.

      • aprilthird20214 hours ago
        Well, in India people are used to authoritarian government banning random online stuff. Or shutting the entire Internet down for days

        This is the first largely used anything online the government has banned, and I'm personally still upset it even got this far. The internet was supposed to be free speech incarnate, and banning apps and websites for Americans on it, isn't something I honestly thought I'd ever see

        • heeen22 hours ago
          From the POV of the users it doesn't really make any difference whether the government bannd tiktok, vine went bankrupt, google decided wave was not worth it or any other reason a service becomes unavailable. They will cope by moving to a different service or changing their consumption habits
        • 3 hours ago
          undefined
    • rvz5 hours ago
      Perhaps this TikTok ban is a time to reflect around their addictions and cravings.

      A new year's resolution to go cold turkey and a chance to change a cure their own addictions.

      It is not the end of the world. Just the end of someone's supply of a brand of digital drug.

      • conradfr4 hours ago
        At the end of The Truman Show when it goes dark the cops don't switch off the TV, they look for another channel.
      • croes1 hour ago
        And the government won’t have a problem if the new digital drug is under their control.
      • FpUser4 hours ago
        >"Perhaps this TikTok ban is a time to reflect around their addictions and cravings."

        And tell "go fuck yourself" to FB, Instagram, X ... etc.

    • dmonitor4 hours ago
      there are a decent number of people who make money and market their business on tiktok. those people are probably concerned about their future
      • tivert2 hours ago
        > those people are probably concerned about their future

        As they should be, because they stupidly made their lives dependent on a single platform that anyone with a brain could see was likely to run into trouble sooner rather than later.

        The lesson for the is: don't put your eggs in one basket.

      • popcalc17 minutes ago
        They had an entire year to prepare.
      • kelvinjps104 hours ago
        They only care about the userbase they will just start publishing to whichever platform users choose
    • starfezzy4 hours ago
      Except for people who's income depends on it. And their families. And their friends.
      • seb12044 hours ago
        Most things sold there appear to be cheap, fast waste products. happy to have them gone and their unsustainable practices.
        • t-writescode4 hours ago
          That certainly doesn’t reflect my experience with authors selling their books, musicians their music. Things I would never have found on my own.
          • AlexandrB4 hours ago
            This is silly. It's like a TV channel going off the air. People who need to advertise will use other available channels (Facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, Reddit, etc.) instead.
            • ascorbic1 hour ago
              No it's not. These aren't people just buying ads - they have a whole following that they need to rebuild somewhere else.
            • t-writescode4 hours ago
              Yeah, no… Bluesky is the best potential alternative.

              It’s worth knowing I don’t go seeking new music on TikTok. Music that resonated with me was brought to me while looking for other things.

              Topics which I found interesting lead me to books by new authors I didn’t know were authors on topics I didn’t know I wanted to read about. I’m not even much of an avid reader

      • Aloisius3 hours ago
        People had years to prepare.
  • picafrost1 hour ago
    It’s always uncomfortable when realpolitik clashes with the values we aspire to have.

    What is freedom, anyway? Surely it can’t include allowing a foreign adversary access to a knob to twist on an important demographic of society. A foreign adversary who is actively compromising the network infrastructure of that society [1] but definitely wouldn’t touch infrastructure around an app owned by a Chinese company.

    There’s no such thing as a free lunch. One person's portal to a better world is a state's vehicle to shaping it in the state's interests.

    [1] https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-hacking-espio...

    • MichaelMoser1231 hour ago
      that's a slippery slope. The Russian government is also justifying all of its censorship with foreign interference (this line of argument works with the Russian public, just to note), take care!
      • picafrost30 minutes ago
        I'm less certain that it's a slippery slope than it is a fine line. The government does not appear to have a problem with the speech occurring on TikTok. It is not trying to apply censorship or forcing the app to close down. It tried to force it to be sold away from its Chinese ownership. It tried to mitigate the possibility that a foreign adversary can use the app as a tool for its own interests. Had TikTok divested itself instead of shutting itself down the dancing would have continued on.
      • nvarsj53 minutes ago
        Indeed. It's the road to open government censorship. There is no grey area when it comes to freedom of speech.
    • dkjaudyeqooe1 hour ago
      > What is freedom, anyway?

      It's a question of freedom for whom and freedom from what.

  • FilipeMaia44 minutes ago
    The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.
  • gdubs2 hours ago
    I think a lot of people on here never spent much time on TikTok and it shows. It wasn't just for young people and it wasn't all brain rot.

    There were vibrant communities, subcultures.

    Real issues were aired there. Real people connected. From the early days of Covid it provided a window into a broader world.

    • dkjaudyeqooe1 hour ago
      That's great, but the people there should realize it's a bad idea to put all your eggs in one social media platform basket.
      • gdubs1 hour ago
        It's not like people aren't trying other platforms — but those platforms don't surface the same kind of content, don't provide the same reach, or are actively pushing their own agendas.
        • dkjaudyeqooe50 minutes ago
          Fair enough, but you should post your content elsewhere too, as a backup, and to reach more people perhaps.

          While platforms dominate, instead of content dominating (see podcasts where this seems to be happening), you will always be a prisoner to what happens on the platform.

          • krainboltgreene10 minutes ago
            It is hilarious to see “do more work for less returns” being bandied about on a business web forum.
      • russli19931 hour ago
        would you say the same thing about Meta and Google? Clearly social media monopoly is not the issue. In fact, USA government want US dominance in global social media, digital world, and digital marketplaces.
    • fastball2 hours ago
      I haven't seen anyone argue that TikTok provides zero value.
    • gundmc2 hours ago
      Can you give some examples? I a skeptical that the format, designed for maximum retention and engagement, can be a positive.
      • KineticLensman13 minutes ago
        Short form instructional videos on topics such as woodworking that get a point across in 90 seconds, rather than a ponderous YouTube equivalent
      • gdubs2 hours ago
        I mean, John Saves Energy is one that comes to mind. He shared tons of info about his solar power rig, interesting data, vibrant conversations.

        Music accounts like Rare The Nanas who put me to sleep many nights with amazing VHS finds of obscure 90s music performances.

        Tons of music theorists, weird quirky bands and musicians who built huge followings there, film makers, game devs, and on and on and on.

        • fastball2 hours ago
          What prevents JohnSavesEnergy from posting content on any other platform?
          • seventhtiger1 hour ago
            Not being noticed due to low quality algorithms. To me TikTok was the first proof that recommendation algorithms can work. I have been using manual curation for so long because so many times I open YouTube or any other social media with the intent to consume content and get that same old feeling "there's nothing to watch" like flipping channels on TV. Just scrolling unattractive thumbnails.

            TikTok may have been too effective and addictive, but it undeniably worked. I started watching many niche and interesting content creators that the other platforms wouldn't recommend to me.

          • gdubs2 hours ago
            The question is: what prevents creators like JohnSavesEnergy from emerging on other platforms.
          • qingcharles35 minutes ago
            I can post identical videos to different platforms and get massively different reach. I have one video that has >2m views on Reels, but only 200 views on TikTok, and vice-versa.

            Success on one platform doesn't always mean success on all.

            How much money has MrBeast made outside of YouTube? (excluding Amazon)

  • yashg2 hours ago
    TikTok was banned in India years ago. There was some noise initially but eventually everyone moved to Instagram Reels/YT Shorts. A few homegrown apps tried to capture the space but couldn't compete against Meta and Alphabet's entrenched network effect and superior platforms. TikTok wasn't as big in India back then as it is in the US right now but it was gaining traction and then lost it all. The same alternatives already exist in the US as well, people will move on in no time.
  • geor9e4 hours ago
    Apple and Google created individual APIs to serve up phone number, contacts, exact location, device model, time zone, clipboard data, photos, files, and cookies to 10 million different random app developers to harvest to their heart's delight. US government passes law against just one of them for using said APIs. Are they going to fix the root of the issue, or just play whack-a-mole forever?
    • Vegenoid38 minutes ago
      Not only have they created those APIs, they've actually created hardware devices to collect and store such valuable personal data. Banning certain APIs is just another layer of whack-a-mole - we need them to pull the weed out by its roots!
    • etchalon1 hour ago
      Congress should ban operating systems is a hell of a take.
    • arunc2 hours ago
      You know the answer.
  • jedimastert5 hours ago
    I'm really curious and somewhat worried about what the economic effect of this is going to be. There are a number of legitimate small businesses that saw a lot of, if not all of, their business and customer base through TikTok. Business that just will not be able to make the move to somewhere else.

    I personally know musicians, actors, and artists that got a lot of work through TikTok. People who actually create things, and people who just used the app to make ends meet who probably aren't going to make ends meet this month

    • paxys4 hours ago
      There's nothing inherently special about TikTok. It just happens to be the hot social media platform right now. There were plenty before it and there will be plenty after it. There will be a short period of adjustment and eventually everyone will move on to something else. People aren't going to stop listening to music or buying things.
      • KaoruAoiShiho4 hours ago
        Are you sure about this? I've heard many many times that tiktok is uniquely good at discovery for new businesses.
        • paxys4 hours ago
          Because TikTok is where the hip young demographic is. If they all move to say Instagram Reels en masse then Instagram will be the platform that is uniquely good for discovery among that audience.

          And let's not pretend that TikTok is filled to the brim with high quality products and small businesses. Yes there may be a couple of feel good stories about a local pizza place or small band that got their big break because of TikTok, but 99.9% of the advertising there is for the same junk/scam products that are on every other influencer-driven app.

          • gdubs2 hours ago
            Reels doesn't provide a true alternative because it's not about features and functionality it's about culture. The culture on Meta's Reels is really not it. And it's not just the user base but also the way the app is managed, and the algorithm.

            TikTok's algorithm was amazing, as was the community.

            You can't just recreate communities. They're alive, organic, fragile things.

          • t-writescode4 hours ago
            How many times has YouTube recommended a your next video something with zero comments and maybe 10 views.

            I cannot count how many times minute I’ve been the first to see or comment on a TikTok video.

            It let small creators be shown to lots of people in a way no other platform does.

            • Sabinus2 hours ago
              I think in 2024, Youtube changed the algo for the front page. Now there is almost always one video in the top two rows with tiny amounts of views. I think it came about when there were lots of complaints about discovery of niche/new stuff.
            • wilg4 hours ago
              YouTube does this for me relatively frequently.
              • t-writescode4 hours ago
                Genuinely glad to hear it. I almost always get something I’ve already seen before when I let it auto-play.
                • wilg3 hours ago
                  i don't know if it does it on auto play, i typically see a "rising video" in a top slot on the homepage. i think its also based on what it thinks you might like so not everyone may get them.
                  • t-writescode3 hours ago
                    I explicitly disabled YouTube’s and extra layers of tracking. Ironically, it should still be able to track off my upvoted and playlists, it just doesn’t, unless it’s playing on my TV and then suddenly it can again and that’s when I sometimes (though only hours and hours later) get new stuff.
                    • wilg3 hours ago
                      if you don't save your watch history, yeah, it probably doesn't bother using you for this feature
            • Kiro12 minutes ago
              Yeah, like the sibling comments I can confirm that this is a core part of the YT algorithm now and has been so for at least a year.
          • sebmellen4 hours ago
            To your point, TikTok is filled with absolute trash.

            For example, there’s a company called “Cerebrum IQ” which scams people out of hundreds of dollars for fake IQ tests. We are painfully aware of this issue because we own cerebrum.com, and we receive at least 100 furious support requests per day from people who have been charged $80.00+ for a subscription they never agreed to, and they somehow confuse us with “Cerebrum IQ”.

            They get most of their users from TikTok ads.

            We’ve reported them to TikTok many times, with no action taken. Meta at least restricted their ability to advertise.

        • dleeftink4 hours ago
          It's the exact reason the platform economy has gotten such a bad rep over the years; drawing people in, taking a (disproportionate) slice of the pie, and providing no guarantees for a sustained income upon disruption.
        • ty68534 hours ago
          That would be a very good reason why a corporate influence dominated government would want to shut them down.
        • notatoad4 hours ago
          yeah, tiktok really was (is?) something special because unlike other platforms, their algorithm really increased people's reach out beyond their own community.

          youtube shorts and instagram reels seem like they do the same thing on the surface, but they're so much more focused on showing you content that they are certain you'll like, and from people in your network or people who you normally watch. they're a whole lot more focused on keeping people in their existing content silos.

      • johnneville4 hours ago
        their algorithm was inherently special imo. as well as their ad service. instagram seems like the biggest available replacement but it is so offputting for me subjectively with it's worse algorithm and increased and ill-matches ad placement.

        some of the fediverse alternatives seem appealing but have less content.

        i'm sure something will replace it if the ban remains in place but at the moment there's nothing nearly as good for me

      • aprilthird20214 hours ago
        But that's not the point. There's nothing inherently special about Facebook either. But the disruption is expensive and many would argue unnecessary.
      • forgingahead4 hours ago
        This is a typical HN "marketing is stupid" post. TikTok organic and paid are some of the best drivers of leads and sales for businesses, same like FB and Google are as well.

        Handwaving TT away as "another social media platform" is like comparing Friendster or MySpace with the ad machine that FB has built. There are countless businesses that will be impacted by this.

        • AlexandrB4 hours ago
          I would be happy if all social media was wiped out tomorrow. The eagerness of advertisers to throw money at these platforms frankly sickens me. So many of the internet's current ills originate in how social media platforms operate.

          I don't give two shits how many leads these platforms drive, just like I don't care how many farmers the tobacco industry employs.

    • gemerald4 hours ago
      You should never be fully reliant on a single corporate platform if you make a living selling goods or services.
      • 0x6c6f6c4 hours ago
        You can be fully aware of this and still have issues building up your platform elsewhere.

        We utilize every platform equally. TikTok organically grew at least 5x the followership for our business, meanwhile Meta gouges us for advertising to be seen at all and we see worse results and interactions there.

        The ban of TikTok will have resounding effects even if people are utilizing the alternatives. I've seen far too many people who haven't used TikTok and the alternatives for their business, or are not business owners at all, declare their opinions as facts when they have no actual experience in this space.

        I'm not saying this explicitly includes you, I don't make presumptions about your experience in this space.

        • Salgat3 hours ago
          That's because most of the users are there. Now they will go somewhere else, and you can utilize whatever becomes the next big platform.
        • genocidicbunny4 hours ago
          Regardless, the parent is correct. If you're reliant on a single platform, for whatever reasons, you're vulnerable to being fucked over by that platform. Practically speaking, how is TT being banned different than being arbitrarily banned from TT?
          • t-writescode4 hours ago
            And we put PayPal and Google on blast every time they ban a creator because they are more than one of many, they’re the main place everyone goes.
            • genocidicbunny4 hours ago
              No, we don't. Most of the people affected end up just moving on. It's only a few rare instances where someone has enough of an audience to 'put them on blast'.
      • globular-toast34 minutes ago
        Which will be impossible if people stop using cash.
    • bearjaws4 hours ago
      Companies had 4 years, and more recently, 4 months of notice. Theres two other doom scrolling platforms to choose from.

      I think people overestimate how much local businesses relied on it, sure a few were booming making "me too" content (looking at you pressure washing companies). But you will still find the goods and services you need.

      And now you won't have dozens of bad temu ad's "OH I feel bad for whoever bought this vacuum yesterday because now its 57% off!!!"

    • waltbosz4 hours ago
      My cousin worked at a place where he would stream for 8 hours a day on tiktok and sell trading card packs and other collectables. I guess it was a bit like home shopping network. But his streams were kinda goofy and playful. I didn't really understand who the customers were. I guess some people found him entertaining and liked what he was selling.
      • reaperducer3 hours ago
        So he's going to get a job now?
        • jrflowers3 hours ago
          “Entertainment isn’t a real job” is a cool and normal opinion to have, and it’s usually held by people that are a blast to be around
    • scarface_744 hours ago
      My friend who is bartender downstairs from my condo is a singer in a band. They are active on TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram.
    • skue2 hours ago
      This wasn’t a sudden thing. The law was passed 9 months ago.
    • enjo4 hours ago
      They had plenty of time to figure this out.
    • voidfunc4 hours ago
      Don't worry it will be reversed by the end of the week.
      • MangoCoffee4 hours ago
        How? It's a law passed by Congress with support from both parties. Trump can delay the enforcement, but who knows what will happen after he is gone? Is there any guarantee that Apple, Google, or any companies providing services to TikTok won't face massive fines after Trump leaves?
    • jmspring5 hours ago
      There are other properties to pivot to. ByteDance had the chance to sell, the access to data that even credit bureaus would want is too much for a foreign adversary.
      • jonahhorowitz5 hours ago
        Are there? Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are awful in comparison to the TikTok experience. Red Note is funny, but not really a replacement. Nobody is going to go to Snap.
      • 0x6c6f6c4 hours ago
        We utilize every platform equally. TikTok organically grew at least 5x the followership for our business, meanwhile Meta gouges us for advertising to be seen at all and we see worse results and interactions there.

        No, these options are not truly equal, and many businesses will suffer.

    • Salgat3 hours ago
      I'm more concerned if our domestic economy can face that much hardship at the whims of a foriegn app. Seems like requiring divesting was the right call. Thankfully the bill includes provisions to require divestment much earlier on.
    • rvz4 hours ago
      Did nothing to India with its 1B+ users when it was banned there 4 years ago. They just either used a VPN or just moved on.

      While I disagree with the ban, I'd rather have a sensible fine just like the ones for Meta, Google (YouTube) and others. At one point it also might have temporarily saved someone's chronic addiction to the platform, then they'll just find another platform to get hooked on.

      But for now nature is healing.

      • aucisson_masque2 hours ago
        American are the chicken with golden egg, you don't want to lose them. They have the biggest ad profile value.

        Indian on contrary are cheap, their profile are worth close to nothing.

      • aprilthird20214 hours ago
        Indian users are very well versed in and used to circumventing government bans. It's a different audience
    • disambiguation3 hours ago
      I know think of the poor starving only fans entrepreneurs - i mean small business owners. How ever will they pay for college now?
      • saturn86012 hours ago
        Why do you bash people who have found a way to make an income? We all know tech ain't hiring after everyone was told to 'learn to code'. What else is there to lead a middle class lifestyle?
        • disambiguation2 hours ago
          Good luck if you ever have daughters.
          • saturn86012 hours ago
            You didn't actually answer the question.
    • dzhiurgis4 hours ago
      I think national security might be more important than couple of small entertainment businesses.
  • throwawayqqq1131 minutes ago
    Can someone please explain to me, why it is illegal to publish biased media? Please relate your answer to US native broadcasters like Fox News.

    The public discourse in the US appears very distorted. The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic?

    IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?

    All this is so bizare to me. I dont expect reasonable answers.

    • TheFreim19 minutes ago
      > Can someone please explain to me, why it is illegal to publish biased media?

      You have been misinformed, it is not illegal to publish biased media.

      > The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic.

      What are you trying to say? The majority passes something, and the Supreme Court chose to allow it to continue.

      > IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?

      You're right that it's about media control, namely a foreign adversary being able to completely control media widely consumed in the United States. Framing a content-neutral conditional ban, which could've been avoided without any content changes, as being against "free speech" makes zero sense when the platform being banned is controlled by a foreign adversary that doesn't have free speech. The argument is that a foreign adversary shouldn't be allowed to censor and manipulate our media and farm our data.

      • throwawayqqq111 minute ago
        Thanks for the answer but i am still not satisfied.

        The problem seems to be _foreign_ biased media and not biased media in general.

        > a content-neutral conditional ban.

        So TikToks content is irrelevant, it is only the adversarial ownership. And why is that illegal?

    • kohbo7 minutes ago
      It's not illegal to publish biased media in the US. Not sure where you got that idea.
    • atsjie25 minutes ago
      Always surprised me in the land of the "Free" they ban a whole lot more than in most other countries. Books, LGBT stuff, no objective media. It feels quite medieval.
      • TheFreim13 minutes ago
        "Banned books!" is a phrase used for marketing, but it's not really accurate. Most, if not all, of the allegedly "banned books" aren't "banned" in the sense that you are implying, and the "banning" isn't being done by the fedeeal United States government. You can go to bookstores and see entire sections of "banned" books, which as you might guess from the fact that they are freely sold are not in fact really banned.
  • meyum335 hours ago
    I clicked open the link to find Yahoo has gone dark in China since 2021. Doesn’t work even with a VPN. I miss the good old days of the Web.
    • geokon5 hours ago
      The chasm between the current tech world's culture and Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" is really jarring
      • dfex4 hours ago
        > "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace"

        I remember reading this in my mid-teens and it really speaking to me.

        Sometimes we tend to forget: nobody is forcing us to use the crap that "the Internet" has become home to.

        The Internet isn't the content, it's the network - the map is not the territory and the underlying architecture hasn't changed all that much.

        There will always be room to carve out your space and find your people.

        • geokon2 hours ago
          I mean there is still the FSF and there are plenty of interesting projects working in the decentralizing space.

          My point it's just really moved to the periphery and is a subculture (and tied to crypto, which has a lot of shady things associated with it). The mainstream tech culture seems extremely nationalistic and terrified of the possibilities of a supranational unregulated unmoderated internet

      • pixl973 hours ago
        >In 2004, Barlow reflected on his 1990s work, specifically regarding his optimism. His response was that "we all get older and smarter"

        Cyberpunk was already a well established genre in 96, if you didn't see what the net was going to turn into you were already high on your own hopium.

    • nirui2 hours ago
      Funny enough, the very first foreign chat room that I've ever visited was hosted by Yahoo.com. Seeing people on the other side of globe talk shit feels kind magical, through that you reflect and gain idea of improvements, and it shapes your world view with a more complete (good and bad) picture.

      Now days we have way more advanced self-media platforms, but each one is just an island of (both platform-imposed and self-imposed) isolation.

    • geor9e4 hours ago
      The link is to techcrunch and doesn't mention yahoo. All websites work with VPN in China, as long as the VPN itself isn't blocking them.
      • meyum333 hours ago
        Maybe Yahoo owns TechCrunch. Perhaps they’re detecting access from China based on more than just IP address. Since Yahoo was grilled for handing over dissidents’ info to the Party they really went the extra mile to distance itself from China. They even blocked Engadget from China.
    • monero-xmr4 hours ago
      The cognitive dissonance is stunning. China is a closed system, corrupt, opaque, and doing business there risks being murdered if you don’t grease the right palms. Or if you greased the right palms today, but in 5 years you bribed someone who’s out of favor, could get death.

      Chinese business crying foul over simply forcing an app to change owners is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

      • bearjaws4 hours ago
        They even had 4 years to IPO, it's not like the ban was unknown.
        • russli199348 minutes ago
          The IPO is blocked because of the threat from US government.
      • russli199354 minutes ago
        lol, this is the thing, western media and government brainwashing is too strong with this one. At least in the last 10 years, u don't grease anyone's palm when doing business with China. And looking at all the real facts in the last 10 years, doing business in China, even as a foreign entity, has friendlier and more welcoming environment than the US. Just look at how Tesla is treated in China, and how any Chinese company investment in the US, whether is factories or anything is treated. It is like Chinese are begging the US to take their money and US is doing all sorts of witch hunts. Even for non-Chinese companies, the nationality of the foreign company always being scrutinized. Invest in the US? CIFUS wants a word, Nippon steel blocked. Using US tech? US government wants to have word with UAE AI company, and divides every country in the world into tiers, who can have access AI and who doesn't. And there is a reason why companies are paying their respect to Trump right now, donation to Trump by millions of dollars.
  • hunglee211 minutes ago
    Bottom line is: it is reasonable for governments to exercise control over the information environment their citizens experience, especially when social media has such potential to sow chaos and instability.

    Look at how the US internet fuelled the fires of the Arab Spring / HK protests / Jan 6th / Any number of colour revolutions in Europe. Even today, we see X being used as a platform to encourage protests against governments in UK and Germany. National sovereignty is contingent on digital sovereignty - everyone is going to need a firewall.

  • rented_mule2 hours ago
    What's to stop TikTok from serving their website from non-US servers to all comers? Using it in a browser is not as smooth as an app, but there must be apps out there that are nothing but a WebView to URLs on a single domain (like you can do in Mac Safari with File... Add to Dock...). Submitting / watching videos wouldn't be that different.

    It seems to me the only recourse the US would have is building The Great Firewall of America.

    • aucisson_masque2 hours ago
      You can't track user as well in browser, tiktok has no interest at all doing that. They make money by spying on their user, making profile and selling ads.
    • imnotjames2 hours ago
      As far as I understand it, they wouldn't be able to advertise with US companies in the US so it's a lot of cost for no benefit. Unless they're hosting all that bandwidth for an altruistic reason..
      • raincole2 hours ago
        > it's a lot of cost for no benefit

        The argument for TikTok ban is that it's a Chinese propaganda machine.

        I don't know whether it is true. But assuming it is, propaganda usually costs money.

    • WA1 hour ago
      Laws don't care about technical aspects. ByteDance must comply with the law, meaning, they need to stop offering the service to US citizens, no matter where the servers are hosted, for example, by geofencing their product. If they don't comply, they risk fines. They can only ignore this if they don't care about doing business with the US ever again and their owners never want to set foot in the country again.
  • gitgud9 minutes ago
    It actually happened… I guess Instagram and YouTube will be getting a tonne more traffic then
  • dang2 hours ago
    Related ongoing thread:

    About availability of TikTok and ByteDance Ltd. apps in the United States - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42754130 - Jan 2025 (80 comments)

  • demarq9 minutes ago
    Media approved by the state (of _) shall be the only media you all can freely access.
  • joeegan22025 hours ago
    Consider the proximity of Zuckerberg to the new admin, and the current admin, and remember that this is only market consolidation (data consolidation) around Reels and Shorts.
    • reaperducer3 hours ago
      Consider the proximity of Zuckerberg to the new admin

      I guess you missed the nine million articles over the last few months about how the head of TikTok has been palling around with the new admin and is going to be proudly at the inauguration.

      Zuck is not the scapegoat you're hoping for.

    • xyst4 hours ago
      yup, got to clamp down on the "rise up against the billionaire class" rhetoric. Billionaires want to replace the class war rhetoric with culture war, get the people distracted with bs.

      Meanwhile, the greatest grifter in the world is installing his kleptocracy cabinet, pushing more neoliberalism economic policies, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy at the cost of public programs.

      This country is absolutely cooked man.

  • subzero064 hours ago
    they are really blocking even with VPN, i was just testing stuff out. 1 - if you created an account in US and trying to login with that account, then it wont work. 2 - tried logging in to Canada VPN, and create a "Canadian" account so i can login to tiktok, no joy, it somehow throws errors on debugger and does not proceed on sign up button. 3 - Booted up an AWS ec2 free windows tier machine on Canada region, created and logged in with a new account no issues. 4 - if you try to use that account on your machine with canada vpn, you will get suspicious activity alert then it wont let you login even with canada VPN, so they must tracking device location differently. 5 - So, the only way to access it without any issues is by using some virtual machine located in another region - no VPN, maybe a dedicated region IP might work.
    • vitorgrs3 hours ago
      I guess tiktok is similar to Meta. It's basically impossible to create Instagram, and I guess Facebook accounts using VPN.
    • gniv3 hours ago
      I'm in France and it still doesn't work. They might have just turned it off completely.

      Edit: Nevermind, it works from an incognito window. So it's just my account they banned.

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • consumer45131 minutes ago
    If anyone else thinks that our current reality is a joke, and you are feeling the pull of nihilism, please email my username at gmail. We need a group chat, I really don't want to become a nihilist.
  • low_tech_love7 minutes ago
    I’m too old to be optimistic but this was a great final message from the Biden administration: that the US still has the courage and power to stand up for itself and fight back. Regardless of what happens in the next 4 years of the coward administration that’s coming, the phantom of a real president/government will at least (hopefully) be there.
  • SeanAnderson5 hours ago
    This'll be a pretty interesting psychological experiment. Tomorrow a whole lot of addicted people are going to be experiencing withdrawals at the same time. I have to assume nothing major will come of it, but still, there's not too many instances of this occurring in society, right?
    • sfblah5 hours ago
      Most people will just use Instagram Reels or YouTube shorts. They’re identical.
      • guidoism4 hours ago
        They are identical in the same way that my Hacker News and Facebook are identical. They are both places where people post stuff and comment on stuff but the community in each is very different.

        If Hacker News were to shut down for just the US users and people were told to go continue the conversation on Facebook do you think that it would feel the same?

        Part of what makes TikTok and Hacker News great is the interaction with people all over the world. What's going to happen to the diaspora? Are they going to all end up in one place?

        Again, if Hacker News kicked out all of the Americans living on US soil then would the rest of the users follow the Americans onto Facebook to continue the conversation?

        • czhu122 hours ago
          100%. I used to love meetups in sf via meetup back in the day, really genuine people wanting to learn new things at the time. When that platform collapsed, it basically wasn’t replaced at all.

          Same thing could be said of the academic side of Twitter. It’s now fragmented across Twitter, Bluesky, mastodon, and the level is discussion is very diminished

        • thefaux4 hours ago
          Hacker news is the only online space I participate in regularly. But I also wonder if my life might be better if I cut it out too.
        • jyunwai2 hours ago
          It depends on what content you watch on TikTok. Many comedy content creators on TikTok have identical, mirrored copies of their content on Instagram (an example is Leenda Dong, who has been very popular on both TikTok and Instagram).

          This was also tested in practice in India, when the country banned TikTok in 2020. Rest of World published a report in 2023 with the conclusion that most users simply switched to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts without much complaint, just as the previous commenter predicted: https://restofworld.org/2023/america-india-tiktok-ban/

      • SeanAnderson5 hours ago
        I do think this is one possible outcome. I didn't use TikTok (nor do I use reels or shorts), so I don't really feel educated enough to be as confident as you.

        I was browsing r/TikTok and the comments there certainly don't seem to imply that everyone is eager/interested in going to reels/shorts. I hardly even see those platforms mentioned in https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1i4p6s0/rip/ but it could just be sampling bias since I'm reading Reddit comments rather than looking for discussions on YouTube/Instagram.

        Still, it takes time to habituate to a new app's UI and culture. Even if people are willing and able to shift to a new platform I think there will be a lot of shared frustration in the short term.

        • plantwallshoe4 hours ago
          Reddit is the ultimate fanatic echo chamber. I wouldn’t trust any opinion bubbling up there to be representative of any large group.
          • nindalf4 hours ago
            Yeah agree completely.

            Opinions on Reddit and HN are almost always from the 5% most engaged, most online of any subgroup. These are not regular people. Is every software developer you know represented by the opinions that get upvoted on HN? Thankfully, no. Similarly the kind of people posting to /r/tiktok aren’t your regular TikTok user by a long shot.

        • aardvarkr4 hours ago
          They’re going to need their next fix from somewhere so they’ll move pretty quickly… they may complain for a bit but a junkie needs their drugs regardless of the source and quality
      • b114845 hours ago
        Just like C, C++ and C#
        • hshshshshsh4 hours ago
          Of course. If C goes away what you do. Code in C++ or quit programming.
          • throwup2384 hours ago
            “Quit programming” is excellent advice regardless of the language.
          • sebastiennight4 hours ago
            If C went away, we would have to switch to ++ or #
      • wilg4 hours ago
        Strangely, Meta doesn't allow Reels longer than 3 minutes (90 seconds prior to a couple days ago). Why they don't match TikTok exactly is beyond me.
        • aprilthird20214 hours ago
          I agree. It's mind-boggling their reluctance to be a TikTok alternative, especially with knowing about the ban so far in advance
          • vitorgrs3 hours ago
            I do say they should have even relaunched IGTV again lol.

            They were faster to clone Twitter with Threads.

            • saturn86012 hours ago
              >They were faster to clone Twitter with Threads.

              Wasn't that because they hired a lot of ex-Twitter employees with an obvious ax to grind ha ha?

      • grahamj5 hours ago
        That's the one thing I dislike about the ban: that it helps zuckergram
        • kristopolous4 hours ago
          that's likely the largest reason it went through. If you think US social networking companies weren't pushing the ban for financial reasons, you're just being silly.

          404 did an article on it: https://www.404media.co/a-tiktok-ban-is-a-gift-to-meta-and-i...

          • sebmellen4 hours ago
            You think Zuckerberg paid off the Supreme Court? You’ve got to be joking.

            Even Trump, who we know Zuckerberg had donated to, claims he will try to “bring back TikTok”.

            This case was argued and won on the basis of national data security.

            • kristopolous3 hours ago
              Of course I read that and know the arguments, I'm not an idiot.

              But I see through it because once again, I'm not an idiot.

              When far more sensitive social media apps like Grindr were sold to Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd, nobody went crazy because it didn't threaten FAANG.

              There's many swiping and dating apps owned by chinese firms. You also have chinese capital firms being the primary investor in cloud and photo sharing apps. Plenty of sensitive stuff going through the spindly fingers of the shifty orientals without a peep - for like decades.

              There's even Chinese finance apps like WeBull that hold things as sensitive as American's retirement accounts. Apparently also not a problem.

              People have Wyze doorbell cameras and TCL smartTVs and Eufy security cameras. They have TP-Link routers and Hisense computer monitors. Chinese cameras, WiFi, and microphones are everywhere in the modern home.

              But once something came around that was a plausible competitive threat to FAANG then all these reasons just materialize and get applied to that thing specifically.

              I mean seriously. Give me a break.

              We like to look back 100 years ago at protectionism and racism and tell ourselves that we were dumber back then and wouldn't fall for it now.

              And yet, here we are.

      • sundaeofshock5 hours ago
        YT sure. However, there are a lot of anger towards IG from TT users and creators.
      • kelseyfrog4 hours ago
        Or RedNote
      • jmyeet5 hours ago
        To borrow a Tiktok meme... tell me you don't use Tiktok without telling me you don't use Tiktok. This seems like such a surface-level comment from somebody with no familiarity with the platform. People love Tiktok. People on Tiktok hate Instagram Reels and Youtube Shorts, for many reasons. Examples:

        - IG Reels are limited to 90 seconds compared to 3 or 10 minutes on TT;

        - Youtube Shorts can now be up to 3 minutes but that's relatively new (October 2024 IIRC);

        - Tiktok moentization is better than these other two platforms, both in terms of ad revenue but more importantly, the Tiktok Shop;

        - The comments on Tiktok are truly a league above IG or YT. The latter two are just full of random drivel and vitriol;

        - The recommendation algorithm for scrolling on TT is miles ahead of either platform;

        - Tiktok is the only platform where people went there for short-form videos. They're native to the platform whereas they were bolted on to both IG and YT as an afterthought, a real "me too" Tiktok response. And they don't quite fit. The user experience on Tiktok is so much better than IG or YT.

        - A huge chunk of Reels and Shorts content is simply reposted Tiktoks.

        Sundar and Mark may think they'll simply gain Tiktok's user base. I honestly don't see that happening. I'm sure there'll be an uptick in YT and IG but now 170M MAU worth.

        • jonahhorowitz5 hours ago
          Also:

          - you can't watch at 2x on reels

          - you can't pause a video while watching on reels

          - you can't seek in a video either, you just have to watch the whole thing over

          - reels interrupts your experience with awful ads every 2-3 swipes

          - YT shorts probably has awful ads too, I haven't tried it

          The time limit is probably going to be the biggest issue for YT and reels, but the ergonomics of both are so awful that I can't use them for more than a few minutes. I could scroll TikTok until the little video about scrolling too long came up (an hour I think).

          • vitorgrs3 hours ago
            - You can pause a video. Not the best UX, but you need to HOLD your finger, just like you do for Stories

            - You can seek in a video too. Again, awful UX, the line is super small, but you can. Depends how large the video is, I believe.

        • Aloisius4 hours ago
          > To borrow a Tiktok meme... tell me you don't use Tiktok without telling me you don't use Tiktok.

          Like so much else on Tiktok, this originated elsewhere. In this case, Twitter.

          https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tell-me-without-telling-me

      • JumpCrisscross4 hours ago
        > Most people will just use Instagram Reels or YouTube shorts. They’re identical

        You’re being downvoted. But you’re correct. The vocal minority inflames about this are mostly ideologically offended, based on the calls and letters I’m hearing both blue and red electeds receive.

        • Karrot_Kream4 hours ago
          You're a biased party because you've canvased for the bill and I think it's good to call your stake in the matter out.

          If it were this simple then Rep Ro Khanna wouldn't still be posting about TikTok. As far as what happens, as with everything else, we'll see. There's a million variables and Hacker ``Social Media was tantamount to the Fall of Man'' News is not the place I'm expecting particularly fruitful, unbiased analysis.

          • JumpCrisscross4 hours ago
            > You're a biased party because you've canvased for the bill

            Eh, I canvassed for privacy bills and that was a total disaster. I believe in the TikTok ban, but I’m not passionate about it.

            > then Rep Ro Khanna wouldn't still be posting about TikTok

            If I were advising Ro I would absolutely insist he tweet about it. Particularly off cycle. Anyone in Silicon Valley or a district with rich libertarians, for that matter.

            • Karrot_Kream4 hours ago
              Ro Khanna doesn't represent the majority of rich libertarian types who would be in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, and Saratoga. The rest of Silicon Valley tends to be suburban, upper class tech workers with large immigrant populations who are only moderately likely to have libertarian views.
            • stonesthrowaway3 hours ago
              [flagged]
        • nextworddev4 hours ago
          There’s a lot of commenting activity on HN that feels like AGI
          • JumpCrisscross4 hours ago
            “Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.”

            https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

    • tjpnz2 hours ago
    • wumeow4 hours ago
      Trump will bring it back in a couple days, it won't be gone long enough to have a large effect.
      • doctorpangloss4 hours ago
        Listen to yourself.
        • wumeow4 hours ago
          ??? He's said he'll do this and there are a couple of ways he legally could?
          • jghn4 hours ago
            He can and will. But it's a riot because he's the one who pushed for this.
            • doctorpangloss4 hours ago
              That may be, but nothing is going to save Polymarket bettors this time.
  • t0lo1 hour ago
    I wonder if part of the new move to ban social media sites is because it's more effective because there's less of an open web and presumably government agencies have gotten the hang of hindering emerging sites and social media they don't like.

    Ie through state sanctioned ddos and bot swarms

  • mediumsmart4 hours ago
    Always nice to see the American population kept safe from propaganda, affordable rents, a working healthcare system and fresh food for 90 cents.
    • popcalc11 minutes ago
      LoL you have to bribe doctors to take care of you in not only China but also multiple EU countries: Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania.
    • Sammi2 hours ago
      You missed what this is actually about. This is about protecting the US from a foreign adversary. It's geo politics. China does the same with banning Facebook.
      • mediumsmart2 hours ago
        I think you did - define foreign adversary and check if you are typing on something that aids and abets this enemy.
        • Sammi1 hour ago
          Deflecting much :) What does that have to do with whether or not Tiktok is used a tool of war by a foreign adversary to the US?

          The no 1 reason the US is banning Tiktok because they are protecting against the war on the minds of their population.

          • mediumsmart1 hour ago
            lets win that war by introducing affordable rents, a working healthcare system and fresh food for 90 cents. :) leaving the last word for you of course
      • 2 hours ago
        undefined
  • prmoustache1 hour ago
    If the problem is China, why wouldn't they ban all apps from China?

    And what exactly is preventing China to launch a new app withjin hours (that is the point of cloud infras right?) under a new company using tiktok source code and allow easy importation of dumps from tiktok to facilitate their migration and get a head start?

    • csin22 minutes ago
      They are trying to go for all apps from China. Someone above mentioned Grindr was also targeted.

      As for the one's they've missed, typical government incompetence. They have trouble differentiating what is, and is not a "Chinese app".

      "And what exactly is preventing China to launch a new app withjin hours..."

      No users. TikTok's massive userbase wasn't created in 7 days.

  • sidcool2 hours ago
    If it's for the mental health of the US citizens then banning TikTok alone is not going to address it. But may be the first step.
  • leave364426 minutes ago
    if anyone or team is looking for the best way to *not* manually migrate tiktok content to rednote, try our ai agent product - https://www.opencord.ai/app

    best way to access it is via your desktop browser

  • Simon_O_Rourke1 hour ago
    I can't see this for anything other than massive act of petulance. Sure TikTok are probably spying and influencing Americans, but I'm darned sure Meta, Google etc. are doing the same for similar non altruistic purposes.
  • rugpulltikytoky2 hours ago
    I think most folks are upset because the US always projects this open image about itself around the world and most importantly to it's citizens. However there are cases where it's actions go against this prevailing narrative and the people are starting to ask questions.
    • Aloisius1 hour ago
      I think most people are upset because they're having withdrawal.
  • dabei5 hours ago
    Did they also delist themselves from the App Store or is that by Apple and Google?
    • derektank4 hours ago
      The text of the bill explicitly holds app marketplaces liable for civil penalties if they distribute "foreign adversary controlled applications". So my guess is that Apple and Google are both opting to prevent distribution, even if ByteDance is willing to delist TikTok itself

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

      • FpUser4 hours ago
        >"The text of the bill explicitly holds app marketplaces liable for civil penalties if they distribute "foreign adversary controlled applications"."

        Spirit of the script seems to be stolen straight from the former USSR

    • justinzollars4 hours ago
      Yes.
  • ljlolel39 minutes ago
    In related news, people are flooding social music service Hangout.fm to discover new music
  • epigramx2 hours ago
    US is the same country that allows a practical monopoly of NVIDIA on GPUs and Intel on CPU (or at least an oligopoly), and then pretend "foreigners are out to get us". It gets one to know one.
    • Sammi2 hours ago
      This is a US policy for US citizens. Of course they are protecting their own. China does the same. No Facebook or Google allowed in China.
      • ascorbic1 hour ago
        China is a totalitarian dictatorship. The US is the land of the free.
      • bamboozled2 hours ago
        On the other hand, I find this a bit concerning too? The USA is starting to look a bit more like China. There is now only “one world view” for us. Given the friend group between the people who run X and Meta and it might leave us in a precarious situation?

        Banning TikTok only treats the symptom , the real disease is that people are way to susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.

        • Sammi2 hours ago
          Did you miss the part where China is a foreign adversary? They don't play nice. If you try to play nice with someone who wants to kill you then you get killed.
          • t-340 minutes ago
            We have nukes. If they try to kill us, everyone dies. "Foreign adversary" just means they're big enough to get a seat at the table in a multipolar world.
    • dmix2 hours ago
      Dominant market leaders aren't inherently bad for the world. That's why anti-trust laws are narrow. Only when they are so ingrained and conspire to be anti-competitive (usually via lobbying gov policy to create barriers to entry) that they harm the ability for competition to replace them. NVIDIA constantly and perpetually have companies at their throats looking to take their market, which means they better deliver to customers.
  • openrisk25 minutes ago
    Its kinda morbidly amuzing to ponder what European countries (and others besides the 'quarreling' US/China duo) will do now.

    Will they also ban TikTok as a security threat? If not, will they issue a statement contradicting US actions?

    If they do, what about US owned platforms that have been known to e.g., interefere with European elections (Facebook / Cambridge Analytica) and (at least) one of the owners openly supports certain type of party across the continent?

    What a grotesque theater. How much more hypocricy can the political classes that enabled the wholesale enshittificarion of our digital lives get away with?

  • ChicagoDave58 minutes ago
    I'll bet none of the people responding here actually read the Supreme Court decision.

    This isn't about data that people agreed to allow ByteDance to scrape. It's about ByteDance going beyond that and scraping contact information of NON-TikTok users, which could be used for blackmail or in other illegal and adversarial ways.

    Everyone knows U.S. companies gather user data. Oracle had been doing it for decades. This is not the issue and not at all why TikTok has been banned.

    The difference is that ByteDance was blatantly going after data that was legally not within their rights to grab; NON-TikTok user data on TikTok user's devices.

    In addition, there are hints in the decision that the FBI provided evidence that China was using this information for adversarial purposes.

    The decision very clearly walks through the First Amendment issues in relation to foreign adversaries and explicitly states that this is a singular decision.

    It would have been VERY EASY for ByteDance to stop scraping data or to find a U.S. partner to host the data of U.S. Citizens. I've worked at global consulting firms and Germany requires this. All German citizen data must be hosted in their country. This isn't anything new. Companies make these kinds of compromises all the time and have for decades. Some companies explicitly state their data has to be on-prem or not in AWS. As an enterprise architect, I make these kinds of design decisions all the time. (Scenario: If customer is located in XYZ country, where do we store their data?)

    ByteDance simply refused because even though they claim they are not handing data over to the Chinese Intelligence Service, they ACT LIKE THEY ARE.

    None of this will matter in a few months. There are active projects to build Instagram and TikTok clones on the atProto network (Bluesky) which will serve the same content without advertising and without an algorithm. There will be Feeds for cat videos, pirate dress up videos, and APT dance videos and I'm 100% sure all the users that join that service will completely forget about TikTok. And the moderation will be given to the users so they can decide what to see.

  • solfox5 hours ago
    It would be nice if such a ban meant that a small competitor could get a jumpstart. Instead I fear the result is that Meta just gets bigger.
    • nextworddev4 hours ago
      Just have Devin or some coding AI agents to clone TikTok /s
      • 1 hour ago
        undefined
      • ripped_britches1 hour ago
        I hear this all the time without the /s

        As if merely writing the code is the only prerequisite for making a hundred billion dollar business

  • MangoCoffee4 hours ago
    It’s funny watching this TikTok ban unfold. Trump went hell on Earth against TikTok before he lost to Biden. Biden got what he wanted done, but now Trump is back and seems to have a special "warm" spot for TikTok.

    Every politician flip-flops, but Trump is something else.

    • wilg4 hours ago
      People want politicians to say they will do something something, but have nothing ever change. And then they punish politicians who change anything at all.
  • Night_Thastus2 hours ago
    Good riddance. It was nothing but brainrot, spyware and propoganda.

    Though it's hardly unique in that regard. That's modern social media now.

    • dmix2 hours ago
      Will be replaced by something else doing all of those things in a few months.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • nektro1 hour ago
    this will have immediate and devastating effects on the economy and culture and the usa especially the incoming administration is not prepared to handle
  • medhir2 hours ago
    was not really on TikTok but a bleak day for anyone that believes in the free speech ideals the US was founded on
    • plantwallshoe2 hours ago
      Aww yes I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote about the need to form a more perfect union that allows hostile foreign governments to run a direct unfettered pipeline into the minds of its youth with zero oversight.
      • spencerflem2 hours ago
        Luckily we get the unfettered propaganda pipeline of hostile american billionaires instead.
        • SXX1 hour ago
          American billionares are surely much worse than totalitarian state running internment camps.
          • spencerflem14 minutes ago
            American billionaires have a much more direct impact on my life than totalitarian states halfway across the globe.

            Also, not to defend the CCP, but America has more prisoners than any other country, China included, and dramatically more per capita.

    • Sammi2 hours ago
      US law and freedom of speech is for US citizens. China is a foreign adversary. China bans Facebook. Same shit.
      • medhir1 hour ago
        China publicly advertises itself as communist regime. I get that we want to protect our interests from foreign adversaries, I disagree that this is the way to do so.

        China banning Facebook is an authoritarian action. If we are doing the “same shit”, it feels expressly undemocratic and I am speaking towards that.

      • russli199312 minutes ago
        Completely different. At least China's rules are technical and can be achieved. Bing, iCloud, AWS, Microsoft office, exchange, Azure are all in China. Of course, whether you want to comply the rules is up to you, but it is doable. Facebook can be in China if they adhere to rules, there were rumors they were going to offer a Chinese version of Facebook but stopped because of backlash, but the point is rule are technical and are doable.

        Facebook and Google are still making tens of billions from Chinese advertisers selling stuff on their platform. And China never forced Facebook or Google to sell themselves to Chinese owners, so completely give up control on branding, IP, code, data and all assets etc etc.

        US is not even giving you any technical rules to comply with. Tiktok's approach to US is replicate China's rules for foreign internet companies in China. All content moderation done by US employees, US employee work on code and data. Data stored in US based servers. But US companies operating in China, like iCloud, AWS and Azure, US employees can still get access to Chinese data for daily engineering operations, like debugging. Tiktok also offered US government appoint security and natsc officials on Tiktok senior leadership, overseeing all code and data practices. US government have kill switch to shutdown Tiktok if they find anything. Tiktok is perfectly fine with US government implementing the censorship to censor whatever US government doesn't like. These details are equal to China's practices.

        But US is not allowing that, it just sell yourself 100% to US owner or get banned. And ban is much more draconian than Chinese ban. Chinese citizens can visit FB using VPN, and companies can transact with FB and Google, hence billions of advertising dollars for these companies. US ban targets all transaction with Bytedance, hence Google, Apple and Oracle are completely geofencing US users that even US user using VPN can't access Bytedance services. And Chinese regulations target specific type of products, Meta's FB main app may not be in China, but FB advertising is. US ban targets Bytedance, the entire company. Capcut, a video editing app is also banned in the US. What data does a video editing app collect? How does a video editing app affect public discourse and opinions? How is Capcut a national security threat? What evidence is there?

        US is not offering you a chance to comply, it is offering you a knife to kill yourself, and say here, you got options, why don't u kill yourself. Anyone who think it is not an insult is just, I have no words for you. China gives foreign companies room to live, so your workers have jobs and income, your inventor keep their inventions and private assets. US gives the foreign company two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. Your workers are out of jobs, what was a comfortable livelihood gone, your inventor's invention is destroyed, you will not get what your invention is worth, your private assets are gone. Or we can take your invention away from you and you lose all control of your baby in the future. If you don't see the difference, I have no word for you.

    • zbobet20122 hours ago
      The US has banned foreign leadership of tv and newspapers since the 30s. At no point had the US ever really allowed foreign governments unfettered control over our media.
  • yett5 hours ago
    TikTok just disappeared from the US Google Play Store
  • HaZeust5 hours ago
    I'd like to discuss the pop-up's content. If it comes out to be that one guy, President Trump, CAN pass an executive order that effectively ignores a law that Congress passed AND the Supreme court upheld unanimously, it's a very dangerous precedent.
    • titaniumtown4 hours ago
      I think we're beyond creating dangerous precedent at this point. He'll do what he wants and no one can stop him.
      • HaZeust4 hours ago
        Between the Unitary Executive decision with "official acts" in July, and being able to claim democratic immunity by winning the Popular and Electoral vote - I'm trying to grasp whatever straws we have left. If this one is broken, we don't even have the "2 > 1" checks and balances between the 3 branches of government that's taught in every Govt 101 class, so it's good to spell this predicament out for people.
    • sobellian4 hours ago
      Congress themselves wrote in the president's authority to do this. Although it is unclear if doing it this late would fall within the law.
      • HaZeust4 hours ago
        Your second sentence is paramount, it wasn't written for this far out.
        • sobellian4 hours ago
          It's definitely an edge case, but courts are not absolutely mechanical and given the context I think it can be argued either way (IANAL). Especially when the outgoing president just told his DoJ not to enforce the ban and leave it to the next guy. At any rate the delay only gives a stay of execution.
    • camdenreslink4 hours ago
      Apparently the law has an explicit clause that allows the executive branch to give a 90 day extension if they feel progress is being made towards divestment.
      • HaZeust4 hours ago
        After deadline, though? Even textualists will be hard-pressed to say the enshrined 90-day extension can be exercised after enforcement is actuated - whether by date or action.
        • cycrutchfield4 hours ago
          Bold of you to assume that rule of law still exists in this country.
          • HaZeust4 hours ago
            Oh it does, try your luck as a layman to prove otherwise. It just doesn't at the top, anymore. And it's brazen.
    • afavour4 hours ago
      Even their blatant appeal to his ego is already dangerous. But will be par for the course for the next four years.
    • kristjansson4 hours ago
      The law gives the President unambiguous authority to grant an extension to the timeline.
      • nickthegreek4 hours ago
        He has to certify 3 things to invoke that extension which he is unable to certify.
        • kristjansson2 hours ago
          True, but that's a low hurdle for the new guy. More generally, its worth pointing out that the law as passed explicitly names TikTok/ByteDance, but locates a lot of authority with the president to determine 'adversary' and 'controlled' in potential future applications of the law.
    • jonahhorowitz4 hours ago
      He can direct the justice department not to enforce a law.
      • HaZeust4 hours ago
        Do you think he should? Do you think it's a healthy exercise in the country's checks and balances for the president to create a precedent where he directs the justice department to not enforce a law when Congress has drafted it, and the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld it? Last time anything like this has happened, it created devastating national history.
        • jonahhorowitz4 hours ago
          I don't think the country fell apart when Obama directed the justice department not to enforce weed laws. [0]

          [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum

          • HaZeust4 hours ago
            I don't think this compares, but I do see where you're coming from. Whereas the present SC has unanimously upheld this TikTok law, The Court has avoided taking a position on federal non-enforcement of marijuana laws in states where it is legalized
        • t-346 minutes ago
          Not enforcing laws by executive decision happens all the time. Whenever police "crack down" on something, that means they were previously letting stuff slide.
        • sebastiennight4 hours ago
          I'll take the bait. What was that last time and what was the devastating national history moment?
          • HaZeust3 hours ago
            I mean the same exact criteria happened in Marbury v Madison and it changed the entire nation's check and balance system, lol. Many will claim for better, but the opportunity is definitely there for worse.
        • Jcowell4 hours ago
          It wouldn’t be the first time an American President decided not to enforce a SC ruling.
          • zeroonetwothree3 hours ago
            I think actually it would be (if you are thinking of the Jackson one it’s not actually the way it’s popularly remembered)
            • HaZeust3 hours ago
              How do you think Worcester v. Georgia happened in ways not popularly remembered?
          • HaZeust4 hours ago
            Read the last few words in my GP, I know. Also, a law drafted by Congress AND an SC ruling upholding it??
      • matwood2 hours ago
        Which would put Google and Apple in a precarious position of ignoring a law because it's not being enforced right now.
  • gostsamo2 hours ago
    As far as Musk boldly stated his intention to interfere in european elections, can we ban Twitter/X on Europe as well? Asking for a friend.
  • ripped_britches1 hour ago
    Regardless of what you think about TikTok or Trump, we can probably all acknowledge this is a “slow ball” pitch that he can hit out of the park politically in a number of ways. People in this thread have mentioned the flip flopping but I don’t think mid term voters care about that. Nor do the Chinese as this brings a bargaining chip to the table.
  • aorloff3 hours ago
    I have a teenager who regularly requests his TikTok screen time allowance to be reduced. He wants to not know the passcode even though he is well old enough to know it if he wants.

    What this temporary outage might do is have the opposite effect TikTok expects - to show people they need a break from such an addictive app.

    Stranger things have happened on the internet. The longer before Trump "cuts a deal" the more I expect people to press the question - why allow China access to this market if China is shut to our social media apps ?

    • suraci3 hours ago
      What are we? a Communism 3rd world country?
      • Sabinus2 hours ago
        Open to open countries. Closed to closed ones. Reciprocity is not hypocrisy.
        • russli199331 minutes ago
          Yes China should reciprocate the USA. First increase tariffs on all US imports to 25% or whatever the new rates Trump is putting, put the same tariffs US is putting on individual types of Chinese products on US products of the same type. So 100% for EVs, 100% for batteries etc. Ban sale of any car using US made hardware and software on Chinese roads, that means TI, ADI, Wolfspeed, Nvidia, Qualcomn, etc. Ban sale of Apple until Chinese phones are allowed in the US, such as Huawei and Xiaomi. Ban sale of any vehicle from US entities until Chinese vehicles are sold without barriers in the US, that means Tesla, GM, Ford. Put on barriers for clothing made by US entities until Chinese cotton, fabrics and clothing can enter the US without barriers. Ban US companies from selling networking equipment in China until Chinese companies can sell theirs in the US. Force sale or ban of US companies if such laws exist in the US against Chinese companies. Investigate US products that have over 85% worldwide market share as overcapacity and dominance and come up with real plan to reduce that dominance. Investigate US subsides on clean energy equipment production, semiconductors and put appropriate anti-subsides tariffs. Sanction US defense firms, civil military fusion, companies that help US military. This is basically just replicating what the US is doing.
  • whatever11 hour ago
    Instantly +20% GDP across the country
  • josh_carterPDX5 hours ago
    It'll be interesting to see how much the other social media platforms work to replicate the TikTok model if this ban ends up being permanent.
  • dandanua3 minutes ago
    When does X go dark too? It's a platform that spreads hate, racism, misogyny and other right wing fascists agenda under Musk's rule. Or is this OK, is this a new policy of USA?
  • 982374823744 hours ago
    Outside the US all the American account contents are still up and visible. How does TikTok designate where an account is from? Can Americans not sign in and delete their content? Do VPNs work if American-created accounts log in? Interesting rollout here I wonder if this will change in the coming days.
    • qingcharles28 minutes ago
      I can access the site on desktop with a VPN through Canada, but it won't let me log in to any account that was created on the USA-hosted servers.

      I created a new Canadian account and now I see a lot of Canadian memes that I don't get lol

      On mobile the VPN doesn't work as it checks your app store country. I saw a few USA refugees on Canada TikTok saying they changed their Apple App Store country and it works just fine now. I think I'll sacrifice an Android device and do it that way.

    • spinach4 hours ago
      App stores are region/country specific and the accounts are linked to that.
      • SXX1 hour ago
        On Android you can have 5 of accounts in Google Play all from different regions to install region-locked apps. E.g bank apps.
  • openplatypus1 hour ago
    Now let's do the same with X (South African foreign adversary) and Meta (Aliens from planet Gooblidook).

    Yes it is a joke. But whether it is outsized influence of foreign power or uber rich nutter, what's the difference...

  • whatnotests21 hour ago
    When the CCP asked Google to censor search results, that was a bad thing.

    When the US government asks China to censor TikTok, that's a good thing.

    Make it make sense.

    • TheFreim28 minutes ago
      First, the United States government isn't asking China to censor TikTok.

      Second, the two proposed situations are entirely different. The former is censoring particular results, the latter is a content-neutral ban with the ability for ByteDance to continue operating with no change to content.

      Third, perhaps this is controversial, but many people don't want a foreign adversary to have the ability to manipulate public perception. If you are the United States, allowing an enemy to have the ability to manipulate massive amounts of your population is extremely dangerous.

      I don't even know that I support the ban, but I certainly know that most of these sorts of comparisons simply don't make sense and are either missing or ignoring vital pieces of the puzzle.

  • thatguymike5 hours ago
    A huge shame it'll be undone in 24 hours. Shouting out Trump by name in the ban message is hilarious, they are really doing their best to tie his hands.
    • Trasmatta5 hours ago
      It's extra bizarre, because Trump is the one that made the initial move towards banning TikTok during his first term.
      • 3vidence4 hours ago
        My brain is trying to understand the loop going on here.

        * Republicans ban TikTok

        * For whatever reason ban doesn't go through (was it via executive order)

        * Dems pickup where republicans left off and ban TikTok

        * Republicans undo ban

        Why.....

        Especially since it was the same republicans in both cases

        • cycrutchfield4 hours ago
          Not too hard to understand. He sensed he had leverage based on national security concerns to dangle a sword above their heads. One of their investors donated a bunch of money to help get him re-elected, so now he will reverse his earlier position based on some other pretext. It’s all theater.
        • tayo424 hours ago
          the republican platform is just "not democrat" and plays to people who need an identity
      • cycrutchfield5 hours ago
        That was before Jeff Yass gave him a bunch of money.
      • paulcole4 hours ago
        Not bizarre at all. Trump doesn’t need to ever acknowledge that he’s the one who made that initial move. Just take credit for saving it now.

        Maybe if he’s feeling himself he’ll say it was a 4D chess move to make Biden look like a bozo by being the one to ban it just for him to swoop in and undo the ban in 48 hours.

        It’s impossible to gotcha a guy who pretends the past never happened — or who insists that his imagination of the past is accurate.

        • Karrot_Kream4 hours ago
          Exactly. That and trying to bury the lede about the Biden Administration's role in the Gaza ceasefire would send a signal to a huge chunk of voters alienated from the Democratic Party that the Republicans care about them. I'm afraid (though unsure how realistic my fear is) that a enough GenZ and anti-Gaza voters will flip to Trump if Trump keeps TikTok going that the Democrats won't be able to win in the midterms.

          A lot of the anti-TikTok sentiment seems to revolve around the mores of college-educated, upper-middle-class white GenX and Millenial mores, which the Republicans have gleefully used as punching bags.

          • Trasmatta4 hours ago
            > I'm afraid (though unsure how realistic my fear is) that a enough GenZ and anti-Gaza voters will flip to Trump if Trump keeps TikTok going that the Democrats won't be able to win in the midterms.

            There are about 10 million news cycles between now and the midterms, highly unlikely anyone will remember any of this by then.

            Gen Z voters are also young, and young people never vote.

          • paulcole4 hours ago
            Democrats getting trounced by Trump/Republican Party is one of the most embarrassing things to ever happen to the Democratic Party and that is saying something.

            If they lose (again) it won’t be because of TikTok. No place left to look but in the mirror.

    • 5 hours ago
      undefined
    • cycrutchfield5 hours ago
      He lives to take credit for moments like this. One can only wonder what his actions will be conditional on, but it’s a virtual certainty that it will need to benefit him personally.
      • zfg4 hours ago
        It did benefit him personally.

        He said so himself. "Trump told the court that TikTok was an important platform for his presidential campaign and that he should be the one to make the call on whether TikTok should remain in the US—not the Supreme Court.":

        https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/trump-told-scotu...

  • userbinator4 hours ago
    The message also suggests this may only be a temporary disappearance. TikTok credits President-elect Donald Trump for indicating “he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office,” with users urged to “stay tuned!”

    This is the most unusual endorsement I've seen, admittedly of a most unusual President.

  • enlightenedfool4 hours ago
    Did they ever show the proof of spying to the American public?
    • andrewinardeer3 hours ago
      Would it be within the realm of possibility that US intelligence agencies have this proof and have not released it publicly?

      Here in Victoria, Australia the state government has deplatformed itself from TT and banned the app from government phones due to security concerns.

      Clearly, the state government has taken instruction from the federal government who has received advice from somewhere (5 eyes / intelligence agencies) about the risks.

    • suraci3 hours ago
      I'm the one who is spying to thr American public

      And I have just observed that you have been downvoted

      • EdwardDiego2 hours ago
        Your social credit score just got upgrade! You may now use high speed trains!
  • nomilk2 hours ago
    To those with knowledge in security, what exactly were the concerns? Here are the four I can think of.

    - Users tend to use the same passwords across apps. It would be trivial for TikTok to provide an email + password combo to CCP.

    - Until 2020, the tiktok iOS app was accessing the system clipboard at all times that TikTok was running (even in the background) https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/26/21304228/tiktok-security-...

    - A sort of vague concern that because CCP can easily compel Chinese companies, it could easily compel TikTok to show / not-show various content to American users. (this could stir political tensions, misinformation etc).

    - TikTok (and by extension CPP) could access any content/messages that the app has access to. E.g. Phone contacts (if permission given), private messages sent on TikTok app (possibly even if just typed but not sent).

    What else?

    • dehrmann1 hour ago
      There's the "Grindr threat"[1]

      There are metadata threats around who's connected to whom, where users are, where they go, etc.

      There can be leaked data in videos posted by military personnel

      1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...

      • geocar1 hour ago
        Right. Grindr puts IP location and and userid information in the ad exchanges so anyone programmatically buying knows which politician/public person is gay and where they are.

        We also know who is fat because myfitnesspal does the same thing.

        We also know who is pregnant, who has recently been raped, who feels vulnerable. And so on. You see an ad? We know a thing. We know if you like boobs even if you don’t.

        Without trying to speak to what American governments and corporations have done with that knowledge, the “security” point is that the Chinese government has this knowledge as well, and the fear they can do something with it.

        That being said, what Cambridge Analytica did (a British company) with this kind of knowledge is well-documented, so I can agree the fear is warranted by both those who seek to monopolise those powers, and those who seek to escape them.

      • nomilk1 hour ago
        > the "Grindr threat"

        Hadn't heard of this. The linked article explains:

        > At the time of Reuters’ March 2019 report, it was unclear what CFIUS’s specific concerns were, but the FT says the committee worried the Chinese government could use personal data from the app to blackmail US citizens — which could include US government officials.

  • sharkski3 hours ago
    Has anyone seen any evidence of ISPs/internet providers taking action to block TikTok?
  • pdx64 hours ago
    The first amendment only applies to the oligarchs and their friends in the 3 branches of the United States. TikTok is only the first to be blocked, there will be more, and they will be DC political fodder too.

    We need a distributed social platform. Distributed currency system. Distributed personal information privacy. Distributed AI. Where’s the tech YC?

    • 9999000009992 hours ago
      The blue sky app is open source, it shouldn't be too hard to fork it and add a short video tab.

      I want open source everything.

      Open Source social media.

      If you and 5000 like minded people don't like Blue sky you can effectively spin up your own server and exclude others.

      Open Source games. I want a billionaire to fund an open source fornite with the same idea.

      Which reminds me, Tencent owns major stakes in (100%) Riot and Epic Games ( 40%). Are they next ?

    • pixl973 hours ago
      >Where’s the tech YC?

      Following the money. TYC did things like bitcoin.

      TYC gives zero shits about information privacy and distributed AI because they can't make more money than god. TYC isn't going to save you here. Nor are the masses going to adopt it.

  • demizer4 hours ago
    There is no system of digital content distribution that can withstand the will of Government. The only thing that can be done is for the citizens of that government to wake up and take the power away from those that are wielding it to further enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. I am not a user of TikTok but this is not a good development for our "perfect union", nor the freedom of the internet in the United States of America.
    • beeflet2 hours ago
      except for like i2psnark or something
    • ungreased06753 hours ago
      I thought you were talking about China until the last sentence.
  • gverrilla1 hour ago
    Good I hope this opens the way for the ban of american apps all over the world.
    • russli199343 minutes ago
      Sale or ban of all US companies in every country. Imagine u could own the branding, technology, IP, revenue and profits of US companies. Country can use that to massive benefit their citizens, end poverty, hunger, bring free healthcare and education, balance currency and trade, increase tax revenues. All US companies can be Indian, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, all nations in Africa, Middle east companies.
  • swasheck4 hours ago
    i’m not normally a conspiracy theorist but i had in mind what trump announced earlier today. he’s going to parlay this into a way to being the millennial/gen z savior and it will work with great success. my gen z kids are already compromising their progressive values and throwing themselves at the feet of their lord and savior donald trump.
    • afavour4 hours ago
      TikTok is doing the same, their goodbye message literally name checks Trump as a potential saviour. A wise attempt at flattering his ego.
    • enlightenedfool4 hours ago
      Not a bad thing to learn some conservative/libertarian values too. Going by the spying argument, every US social media company should be banned elsewhere because all data is siphoned by US gov.
      • pixl973 hours ago
        >Going by the spying argument, every US social media company should be banned elsewhere because all data is siphoned by US gov.

        Yes. All big social media should be banned for just this reason, we already had Cambridge Analytica to know this. Banning TT for spying is just a good first step.

        With this said, the US.g has had the power to ban business with entities for a long ass time and those laws are pretty well established, especially in the case with foreign entities.

  • _Algernon_2 hours ago
    This just means that China will use bots on american social media for influence. Honsestly, considering Trump got elected, that is enough.

    Dont think this will affect foreign influence by china much.

    • sterlind2 hours ago
      controlling the algorithm is a lot more subtle than using bots. it's pretty easy to notice bots and shills. it's harder to notice when it's all humans with sincere beliefs, just that some beliefs are overrepresented.
      • _Algernon_1 hour ago
        >it's pretty easy to notice bots and shills

        You only notice the bots that you notice. How do you know how many bots you encounter where you dont realize it is a bot? Knowing this number is necessary to make the claim that claim, but it is fundamentally unknowable.

  • throwaway484764 hours ago
    Time for the kids to pick up a book.
  • Karrot_Kream4 hours ago
    The coverage of TikTok's closure on this site is just sort of tabloid at this point. The culture of HN ceteris paribus hates social media significantly more than the average person. That and its western bias makes questions about the TikTok ban's effects on this site really silly. The folks here are probably some of the most opinionated, least impartial voices to discuss this issue with. A discussion about the ban's knock-on effects among creators, users, and larger GenZ culture around it isn't going to happen because this site doesn't really have much of those populations on it.

    As far as what's next, it's up to the Biden and Trump admins to see what happens next. If deadlines are extended, what does a good divestiture settlement mean for TikTok? Can the executive department get away with not enforcing this law? And of course, the question that really lies ahead of us: what does this mean for other social media based outside of the US like Telegram, Line, and KakaoTalk?

    • fqye23 minutes ago
      Some opinions here are super ignorant. Yes Tiktok has lots of silly videos but it also is a way for many talented people to reach their audience. Many small business owners and indie artists depend on it to make a living.
  • wumeow4 hours ago
    This shutdown is performative, by the way. The law prohibits the distribution, maintenance, or updating of the application. There's no reason to disable the app for users who already have it installed except to generate outrage.

    No one reads the actual law, everyone is taking the bait.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521

    • andrewinardeer3 hours ago
      I'm not a lawyer but if "maintenance" is interpreted broadly, it might include any operation or service that keeps the app running, which could mean they cannot serve content even if they never updated the app again.

      Serving content could be seen as an ongoing maintenance activity.

      The bill also prohibits the provision of "internet hosting services" for the app. Serving content over the internet could be considered providing hosting services, which would be prohibited unless there's a divestiture.

      Just putting it out there.

  • rdtsc1 hour ago
    > Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the ban

    I already foresee a Mueller investigation part #2 “Trump is a Chinese puppet” stories.

  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • david9275 hours ago
    Is this going to be a crazy year?
    • kccoder4 hours ago
      I’d be shocked if this is anywhere close to the craziest thing that happens this year, so, yes.
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • chinathrow2 hours ago
    > “I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate. You know, it’s appropriate. We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation,” Trump told the outlet.

    I would have thought that indeed, they have looked at it already carefully.

  • gonzo411 hour ago
    This is a massive self own by the US estalishment. They are just damaging their own trust but not releasing the full and classified reasoning behind this.
    • t-335 minutes ago
      Given all the very partisan flip-flopping on TikTok, I'm guessing there's not much to the "full and classified reasoning" and the real reason is more like "damn kids don't read my twitface posts, instead they call me names on a Chinese app, China CHina CHIHIANANANADASARtGHHGLE" and "My opponent has a lot of traction on TikTok, let's shut it down".
  • ginkgotree2 hours ago
    Good.
  • gemerald4 hours ago
    Where will the zoomers go?
    • paulcole4 hours ago
      I’m 41 and watch 20-25 hours of TikTok a week. I love it. Glad it’ll be back early next week, most likely.
      • Xelynega3 hours ago
        What makes you confident it will be back early next week?
      • almostgotcaught4 hours ago
        Lol I'm about your age and I'm sometimes embarrassed about the hour or two I end up watching across all my bathroom sessions but c'mon 25 hours. That's too much.
        • paulcole4 hours ago
          Who’s to say it’s too much? I enjoy it.

          I’m over 1/2-way thru my life. I think I know what I like doing with my time by this point.

          • qingcharles25 minutes ago
            I'll watch 90 mins of TikTok and think I could have watched an entire movie; then I remember I actually enjoyed myself anyway and stomp down the guilty feeling.
  • replwoacause3 hours ago
    Now do Facebook
  • cute_boi4 hours ago
    I hope trump will reverse this action. I don't want government to decide what I am allowed to watch.
    • JumpCrisscross4 hours ago
      > don't want government to decide what I am allowed to watch

      We’ve had almost a century of foreign-ownership limits for media properties [1]. (It’s recently been relaxed but not released [2].)

      [1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...

      [2] https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2017/02/articles/fcc-approv...

    • qingcharles24 minutes ago
      You can get around it right now.
    • wilg4 hours ago
      Luckily they don't, the first amendment is very strong, they just say the PRC cannot control social apps in the US.
    • demizer4 hours ago
      Trump will reverse it by letting one of his donors buy TikTok and restart it. It's better off dead.
    • ungreased06753 hours ago
      Are you ok with the Chinese government deciding what you’re allowed to watch?
      • t-355 minutes ago
        Sure, when I use ${Chinese_App}, I expect a Chinese bias to the algorithm. Same with every other aggregation service or media provider. Same way I expect a US bias to moderation here or on other US sites.
      • enlightenedfool1 hour ago
        Huh? how are they deciding? Every time you watch a video or install an app it's your decision.
    • seanmcdirmid4 hours ago
      It is a law passed by congress. The only way to reverse it is to (a) have a court invalidate the law (already tried) or (b) have congress reverse the law. Trump can say something about its enforcement, but he can't actually reverse the law (at least according to the constitution, which he also said he wanted to interpret differently).
  • captainepoch3 hours ago
    Cool. Now, in Europe, please.
  • 4 hours ago
    undefined
  • GoofballJones4 hours ago
    I don't have the app, but from what I can tell, using a VPN doesn't help either. I guess when you downloaded it from the U.S. Android/Apple app stores, it flags you somehow, so a VPN can't help?

    Dunno, I'm wayyyy out of the loop on all of this.

    • qingcharles23 minutes ago
      On mobile the VPN doesn't help. Have to change app store.

      On desktop VPN works but you need to create a new account if yours was originally created on the USA servers.

    • seanmcdirmid4 hours ago
      If that's the case, you could download it from a non-US app store and it should just work...unless TikTok is doing some denial based on from IP address, then you need foreign TikTok + VPN (or at least a way to mask your IP address being American in origin). At least the USA doesn't have a great firewall (yet?), so they aren't going to block it that way (or maybe they can buy the tech from Huawei, which they adapted from Cisco in the first place).
  • tayo424 hours ago
    Isnt taking the app down today just for show? It seems like the ban wasnt going to be enforced? https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-trump-executive-order-...
    • seanmcdirmid4 hours ago
      TikTok and/or Apple and/or Google probably took the app down themselves. They talk to their lawyers, and tell them "no, Trump/Biden said they weren't going to enforce the law" and their legal counsel goes "no, no, no, you can't go by that, obey the law or you are opening yourself up to huge liability" and that's it.
      • theossuary3 hours ago
        Specifically the statue of limitations is 5 years. Even if Biden and Trump both decided not to enforce the law, the next president could still go after app stores for hosting it, and impose all fines.
  • yakshaving_jgt4 hours ago
    I wish for TikTok-style short form lowest common denominator videos to fall out of fashion.

    Trying to copy TikTok is probably the worst thing Instagram has done. Their “suggested reels” are a cancer.

    • seanmcdirmid4 hours ago
      Even the copies are crazy addictive. Facebook got me in my feed, and then so did YouTube. You can spend hours just consuming things...
  • kylehotchkiss5 hours ago
    I wonder what new and incredible things American teens will learn about themselves and life tomorrow now that their phones are boring. Too bad this probably ends Monday.
    • dqv5 hours ago
      • joshdavham5 hours ago
        YouTube is currently the app that is ruining my life...
      • wslh5 hours ago
        It is also weird that a few days ago in the YouTube non official SoaceX channel with millions of subscribers, an artificial Elon Musk asked people to send cryptocurrencies to an address. This was the biggest scam at scale in realtime that I experienced.
        • pixl973 hours ago
          >YouTube non official SoaceX channel with millions of subscribers

          This is a 50/50 split between YT and SpaceX on the problem.

          That spaceX does not broadcast it live on YT leaves an opening for the scammers to get a popular channel up.

          Now, the scammer channels you see are what happens when an actual big name channel with a lot of followers gets hacked, all the old videos deleted, then they start that feed of the launch and turn it to a bitcoin scam at/right after the launch part.

        • kylehotchkiss4 hours ago
          I’ve been getting a lot of garbage grade YouTube ads too, like a video version of the crude weight loss drawing banner ads that ookla used to serve. I wonder if we’re being punished for using adblockers. Or are you saying the actual video was a scam?
    • tenebrisalietum5 hours ago
      Tiktokers have been discussing where to be reached on other apps for a while now.
  • photochemsyn2 hours ago
    HN is a tightly controlled media platform and I don't expect any honest discussion of this issue here.
    • EdwardDiego2 hours ago
      Wow, jump straight to the bad faith assumptions huh?
  • aucisson_masque2 hours ago
    Another bite the dust.

    Who's next ?

  • 5 hours ago
    undefined
  • jpc01 hour ago
    My opinion. Assuming just because you have the ability to freely listen to everyone else drivel does not mean you made that decision freely.

    I am actively anti-social media myself, it's a hard stance I have and I have had to effectively "die on that hill".

    The amount of time our social media team has had serious issues with me refusing to comply with their requests to be involved with their current tiktok trend, arguing about "but you need to be relevant to the modern generation" when my argument is exactly the thing Tiktok was banned for, I want to be in control of who has my data. That is bad enough already but to freely just give my likeness to a chinese owned company to sell adverts however they like?

    It's got nothing to do with "relevance" its a moral standing. And no I don't think tiktok is the only guilty platform but it's a step in the right direction concidering how absolutely mindless and time consuming the content is.

    And no matter how strongly you believe you have free will and freedom of thought, you are a reflection of the people you surround yourself with and I would make the argument the media you consume.

    And tiktok specifically is significantly more addictive than other media, sure the same argument can be made for youtube shorts and IG reels and whatever else which is the current short form content, and the biggest issue there is: there's no way to justify your stance, to bring evidence to back your case.

    All that there is is the ability to state your point and the majority of users will follow if you state it compellingly enough. It's mass propaganda taken to the extreme.

    I strongly believe YouTube shorts etc should follow the same fate as tiktok has. It should be regulated as strongly as Narcotics because it is equally as addictive and imho has a similar effect on society.

    Sorry for the rant but as I said, I have a moral stance on this topic and for some reason society in general decided it needs to be faught with the zeal of the crusades.

    Why is all of our media bombarded with the ban when it has been signed into law and backed by the relevant countries highest powers.

    If it was a unanimous vote in government and held up by the supreme court why is media against it? They are scared the next step is them.

    This isn't the media holding government accountable, this is media swaying the general public's opinion. This[1] comment on HN just proves that. They had no interest in tiktok, if media let it just go quietly into the night they would still have no interest but now that the fact that its disappearance has been shouted from every rooftop to every single human being the addiction crysis has spread to them. "Fear of missing out" strikes again.

    Media is designed to control and the first punch thrown against it is being countered, who will win in the end?

    1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42754640

  • laidoffamazon2 hours ago
    I generally care about good and bad arguments even if I agree or disagree with the direction of the argument itself.

    But in terms of TikTok, I don't care. Burn it down. If Trump uses his first 100 days to pressure his 3 vote majority in the House to vote to overturn something they passed overwhelmingly it's a pretty startling indication of his priorities and loyalties in his second term. His crypto-scam this weekend is only the prologue.

  • jmyeet5 hours ago
    So I used a VPN to go to a different country and... I still get the "Tiktok banned" message, which is a little surprisingly honestly. I guess Tiktok have done this on an account basis rather than strictly GeoIP.

    The "learn more" link tells you that you can still download your data. I'm not sure how. Website maybe? Because the app only has "learn more" and "close app" as options. Interestingly the fyp still loads and you see a video in the background.

    I do think it'll come back this week but it's not clear what the legal mechanism is. Since the ban has gone into effect the extension in the law doesn't seem to apply anymore. This would then seem to require Congressional action and there doesn't seem to be much appetite for that but maybe that's because Republicans in Congress want to give credit for saving Tiktok to Trump when he becomes president on Monday.

    Another option being talked about is nonenforcement by the Department of Justice. Some dismiss this by saying "the DoJ can change their mind" but that's not strictly true. Defendants in a case can rely on statements by prosecutors. It's a valid defense. If the Attorney-General makes an official statement saying "we will not prosecute Amazon or Google or Tiktok for 90 days (or whatever) while we work this out", that's absolutely a legal defense should the DoJ ever change their mind.

    Basically, this is now a shakedown as some Trump allies will seek forcibly buy Tiktok or at least a large stake in it as a price for its continued operation in the US. It's unclear if Tiktok will acquiesce to this.

    Remember though, Bytedance has significant US investors so there are conflicting forces at play here.

    • qingcharles22 minutes ago
      VPN works on desktop if you open a new account.

      I found another USA refugee on Canadian TikTok who said he just got Apple to change his app store country and it worked after he redownloaded it.

    • trescenzi5 hours ago
      The website works for me behind a VPN. It’s likely they are using the device’s actual location with the app.
    • 4 hours ago
      undefined
    • tanghulu5 hours ago
      I think they go by your SIM information or at least that's how they've done it for other regions. Try turning off your eSIM or taking your SIM card out.
    • kylehotchkiss5 hours ago
      Might just be your device lang and timezone too.
      • ace22b5 hours ago
        Signing up for a new non-US account works fine.

        As soon as I try to login to my US account it bricks the app.

        YMMV.

      • tantalor5 hours ago
        No. Canada exists.
      • jmyeet5 hours ago
        I did change my Region to another and using a VPN and still get it but yeah, I suspect they're looking at something extra from the device.
        • abotsis5 hours ago
          Is this a big surprise? The law banning it was rooted in national security, presumably because of location tracking. Them knowing where users are was kind of the problem…
  • 4 hours ago
    undefined
  • zephyreon5 hours ago
    Someone should measure how much the collective mental health in America increases while TikTok is unavailable.
  • zaseevazarina3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • 5 hours ago
    undefined
  • known3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • idunnoman12223 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • plantwallshoe3 hours ago
      Are they licking Chinese boots or American boots?
  • xyst4 hours ago
    This country is absolutely cooked.
    • Sabinus2 hours ago
      My brother in Christ, the US has done more intense things than this in the past and been fine, and will do more intense things in the future, and (probably) be fine.
  • frem4 hours ago
    This is unfortunate for women in the US, many of whom were using TikTok to raise consciousness of 4B, a protest movement originating in South Korea that calls for women to fight widespread societal misogyny and boycott men. It went viral on TikTok in the US after Trump's win in November and has been steadily increasing in reach and impact since.

    Hopefully this movement will continue on other social media. Though unfortunately none are quite as light on censorship as TikTok is for feminist voices, often unfairly framing these as "hate".

    • derektank4 hours ago
      TikTok actively censored videos containing the word "rape", "assault", and "sex", preventing women on the app from honestly talking about their negative experiences with men. I do not think it's a great loss for Feminism to see the app delisted and it's users migrate elsewhere
      • 3vidence4 hours ago
        This is the same for YouTube and Instagram unless you don't want your content shown to anyone.

        This is just the state of social media...

      • frem4 hours ago
        That isn't a problem in reality as everyone just uses euphemisms which everyone else understands but TikTok doesn't censor. It's been this way for years, we got used to it.
    • DarthMader4 hours ago
      4B was pretty limited in South Korea according to Wikipedia and anecdotally the same appears to be true in US. Anecdotally I see it shared mostly by women who are dating or actively in relationships.
  • rvz5 hours ago
    The 170 million users of this digital crack / cocaine platform has now got their supply cut off and its users are desperately running for the next hit. Rednote "Xiaohongshu" appears to be where they are going to.

    It is also a test for "Rednote" and if they grow extremely fast in the next 90 days then that will be another ban target. But this is all temporary and they will run back to TikTok again.

    But again 170 million users just had their crack / cocaine supply cut off. Now is the time for them to reflect and cure their addiction.

    • pokerface_865 hours ago
      the world would be an infinitely better place if those 170 million people were capable of that. unfortunately, i think, by virtue of consuming short form content in 2025, they are beyond help.
  • throwbully4 hours ago
    China and USA are both same in a way so I dnt give a f..k which side wins. World will be a little better place with one less bully
    • HaZeust4 hours ago
      Seeing someone create a whole new account just to say this take amuses me, as if it was a knee-jerk reaction but with calculated thought on the optics of saying it.
      • pkkkzip2 hours ago
        probably a wumao

        they get paid to post pro-China messages

        • Sabinus2 hours ago
          Sometimes they don't even need to get paid. Chinese online patriotic outrage can be very strong.
  • eBombzor4 hours ago
    Hallelujah but the damage to society has already been done. Instagram next maybe?
  • ahurmazda4 hours ago
    Much ado about nothing! Not available for download a day at max! (You can still use the app if it’s already installed)

    The ban will be repealed on Monday and it will be sold to US tech lords by month’s end. The damn hysteria is embarrassing

    • FigurativeVoid4 hours ago
      That’s not true though.

      Tik Tok chose to block US users this evening even though that’s technically not what the bill asks for.

  • addicted39 minutes ago
    There is literally no content being banned. All the talk about the U.S. trying to censor is nonsensical, as all the opinions by the members of the unanimous Supreme Court clearly pointed out, considering any of those opinions can be made in the hundreds or thousands of other social media avenues.

    The entire situation hinges on TikTok’s ownership. They could sell themselves to any organization based outside China and have been given multiple opportunities to do so and they’ve refused.

    That tells you all you need to know about the priorities of ByteDance, considering the U.S. was their biggest market since they’re banned in both China and India, the only other countries larger than the U.S.

    • cma37 minutes ago
      Facebook is not being banned from China. China just asks that Facebook sell itself to a non-American company or they will be banned (but it's not a ban). Any of those opinions China is "suppressing" by not allowing Facebook can be shared offline in countless unmonitored avenues like back alleys and open fields far enough away from lip reading drones.