TikTok Ban Looking Likely After U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case

[drrich2]

First, to address something you said, unless you live in New Hampshire it is the LAW to wear your seatbelt.

Which, in the case of adults, is a violation of the individual's personal liberty.

People weren't using them, despite being told of the safety issues, in large enough numbers that a law was put in to address public safety.

There is a key philosophical issue here, that of a deontological vs. a utilitarian value system. Andrew T. Post explained it on Quora - What Do People Get Wrong About America? Here's my much simply and shorter take.

Utilitarians measure the desirability of an intention based on what is seen as the collective good/benefit. The European Union seems to lean this way. Deontological people tend to believe an action can be right or wrong based on rules, independently of its outcome.

Take a proposal to bar private ownership of firearms in America. A utilitarian might add projected annual fatality rates with and without it, see the ban was associated with a lower rate, and wish to implement it. A deontologist might believe a person ought to have a right to self-empowerment including the capability of self-defense, especially given that police don't have to provide private body guard service and home invasions, etc..., happen. He might also point out a lot of fatalities are suicides (self-determination) and criminal-on-criminal homicides (and not be as concerned about those). The United States seems to be a bit more deontological than the E.U.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence.

Not unalienable rights to universal health care, paternalist management of our choices by Big Brother government, and the pursuit the government's benign agenda for our lives.

Decade upon decade upon decade there have been laws that have been added because the public is terrible about making choices when it comes to these types of matters. People MOST OFTEN do not make choices that are for their safety, just take the current obesity epidemic as a prime example.

No, they're terrible at making the choices their paternalistic overseers want them to make. The exception is with powerfully addictive agents like nicotine and some illegal drugs.

The obesity epidemic is a good example indeed. How many people out there would like to ban McDonalds, Burger King, Sonic and many other fast food outlets 'for our own good?' Know what's stopping them? We are. They don't have the power, so we retain the freedom to eat Big Macs, Whoppers, etc...

The gov has determined that there is a national security threat from TikTok. They are putting a law in because they already know people won't stop using TikTok if made aware of the safety issues because history has shown they won't (eg. seatbelts, alcohol, gambling, smoking, etc...) and they know they CAN make this law and easily enforce it, unlike a law around drinking too much.

Which suggests they'd do more to coercively micromanage our lives if they thought they could get away with it.

But again if you are saying that even if we know people make terrible decisions en masse, but "just let them" I would still say that since we live in a society and not in isolation, it is ridiculously selfish to ignore the fact that many choices affect others and can't be made without consequences to the larger society and therefore SHOULD be under some sort of scrutiny.

From a deontological perspective, we don't have the right to stop them, so of course we just let them. The problem with the 'we live in a society and our actions affect each other' bit is that it can be used as a justification to practically destroy personal autonomy.

And often that's a red herring. Seat belt laws don't exist out of fear an unrestrained passenger will be through out of a vehicle and land of someone. Or be rendered a quadriplegic with big medical bills. People throw out rationalizations when confronted, but the real reason is some people, if they have the power, presume to control how other people live their lives 'for their own good.'

Are there limits? Sure. I don't favor private ownership of nuclear weaponry. Illegal drugs can undermine free will and induce dangerous psychotic states where the user is out of control (e.g.: methamphetamine and cocaine in particular). Drunk driving obviously.

 

[Alameda]

And the ban will be lifted the 20th or the 21st when / after Trump is reïnstated.

Does the law permit the President to do that?

 

[CEmajr]

The primary reason I believe TikTok is being banned is that it being owned by the Chinese means that the US can’t get its content in lock-step like the mainstream media and all the other social media platforms when we have wars/agendas to push. TikTok allowed more anti-Israel and anti-Ukraine content than the US based platforms and a big part of getting Americans to support these wars is to have the media drum up support for them.

Now imagine if there’s a war with China and one of the top social media apps used by Americans is owned by China which they can in turn use to push pro-China content that the US government doesn’t have a back door to stop.

 

[heretiq]

Are there limits? Sure. I don't favor private ownership of nuclear weaponry. Illegal drugs can undermine free will and induce dangerous psychotic states where the user is out of control (e.g.: methamphetamine and cocaine in particular). Drunk driving obviously.

Social Media has the potential to impact social cohesion in the manner that nuclear weapons impact physical cohesion. Misinformation and disinformation undermines free will and can induce dangerous psychotic states.

Social media is as dangerous as the weapons and drugs you cite and are open to limiting. Why should social media be exempted from limitations?

 

[drrich2]

A/B testing for marketing messaging and A/B testing for personal profile building are two completely different things

If I understand correctly, the latter is about using personal info. in a profile to prepare target advertising.

And anyone believing people on social media are exercising free will and believing they have it all figured out should watch The Social Dilemma documentary and listen the informed perspective of the people who actually built it and now will not allow their kids to use it.

They are exercising free will. Not everyone chooses to do a deep dive and research the topic to the point they 'have it all figured out,' any more than the average Joe eating a Big Mac and large fries can recite the calories, fat and carbohydrates levels of the meal and intelligently discuss details of how it impacts his heart attack risk. But he knows it's junk food, bad for him, fattening and he can go look those things up if he wants.

Of course social media platforms are designed to be engaging, feed us what fosters further engagement, and have the potential for adverse effects - like t.v., video games, various foods, etc...

As I said in another post, minors (kids) are a different issue since their legal capacity for informed consent is an issue. It's a legitimate concern. My focus is on adults.

There are also people who don't let their middle schoolers have smart phones, but we don't outlaw iPhones.

If we really want to understand the world we are collectively building for future generations read Atlas Shrugged and contemplate Ayn Rand’s definition of Evil, then take another look at Social Media through sufficiently calibrated lenses.

There are 2 distinct mentalities in play here, I think. It's a matter which relates a bit of the utilitarian vs. deontological mindsets. You said the world '...we are collectively building for...' 2 Broad worldviews:

1.) Free Market capitalism - vendors put products on the market, consumers choose what, when and how much to use as their resources (e.g.: money), allows, and we mostly let the chips fall where they may. Some exceptions are made for the more egregious extremes (e.g.: meth is outlawed).

2.) Social Engineering - believes the society (typically via government) as a 'duty of care' of the population to manage things more overtly, which justified infringing individual liberties. So you could outlaw salt shakers, fast food restaurants, cigarettes, maybe FaceBook, etc... It's more important for the government to make people live healthy than for the people to control their own lives.

This is important. If you make the case that big social media platforms cause some subtle social harms, whether and how someone expects us to respond differs radically based on that perspective.

 

[Alameda]

The primary reason I believe TikTok is being banned is that it being owned by the Chinese means that the US can’t get its content in lock-step like the mainstream media and all the other social media platforms when we have wars/agendas to push. TikTok allowed more anti-Israel and anti-Ukraine content than the US based platforms and a big part of getting Americans to support these wars is to have the media drum up support for them.

Now imagine if there’s a war with China and one of the top social media apps used by Americans is owned by China which they can in turn use to push pro-China content that the US government doesn’t have a back door to stop.

That is not why. The reason why is that the Chinese government uses TikTok to spy on US citizens.

Many, many U.S. media websites are banned in China, or they are otherwise required to comply with very strict Chinese laws.

 

[drrich2]

Social Media has the potential to impact social cohesion in the manner that nuclear weapons impact physical cohesion.

We're not obligated to be socially cohesive. I don't think partisan fake news going viral is going to have quite the impact nukes did on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In fact, our freedoms of speech and religion serve as guards against the State trying to mandate a value system and suppress dissenting voices. Not only are we not obligated to be socially cohesive, we have the right not to be.

The Founding Fathers laid a nice foundation to protect dissent.

Misinformation and disinformation undermines free will and can induce dangerous psychotic states.

'Psychotic' is a clinical term referring to a disorder of the form or content of thought, such as hallucinations, delusions and grossly disorganized thinking (as common in Schizophrenia). Not usually seen as induced by misinformation and disinformation.

If they undermine free will, it's because people let them. It'd be like arguing Big Macs make you fat. No, but you can use them to do it to yourself.

Social media is as dangerous as the weapons and drugs you cite and are open to limiting. Why should social media be exempted from limitations?

It's really not, and a quick Google check shows the nations with a wholesale ban on Facebook are China, Russia and Iran. That's not who I want to be imitating.

And the reasons they fear U.S.-based social media are why I hope it lives long and prospers.

 

[drrich2]

Now imagine if there’s a war with China and one of the top social media apps used by Americans is owned by China which they can in turn use to push pro-China content that the US government doesn’t have a back door to stop.

Someone elsewhere made an interesting argument - would we let a Russian company buy up major influential American newspapers like the New York Times? It's a good question.

On the other hand, would we block the ability of U.S. citizens to access Russian newspapers online? If there were an ap. in the Apple and Google Play ap. stores to let us read Russian newspapers, would it be right for the U.S. government to ban our access?

Do you believe you have the right to listen to who you will and make up your own mind, or do you think the United States government should restrict your information access so you aren't misled by other claims and can see how right the U.S. government is about things?

 

[heretiq]

If I understand correctly, the latter is about using personal info. in a profile to prepare target advertising.

They are exercising free will. Not everyone chooses to do a deep dive and research the topic to the point they 'have it all figured out,' any more than the average Joe eating a Big Mac and large fries can recite the calories, fat and carbohydrates levels of the meal and intelligently discuss details of how it impacts his heart attack risk. But he knows it's junk food, bad for him, fattening and he can go look those things up if he wants.

Of course social media platforms are designed to be engaging, feed us what fosters further engagement, and have the potential for adverse effects - like t.v., video games, various foods, etc...

As I said in another post, minors (kids) are a different issue since their legal capacity for informed consent is an issue. It's a legitimate concern. My focus is on adults.

There are also people who don't let their middle schoolers have smart phones, but we don't outlaw iPhones.


There are 2 distinct mentalities in play here, I think. It's a matter which relates a bit of the utilitarian vs. deontological mindsets. You said the world '...we are collectively building for...' 2 Broad worldviews:

1.) Free Market capitalism - vendors put products on the market, consumers choose what, when and how much to use as their resources (e.g.: money), allows, and we mostly let the chips fall where they may. Some exceptions are made for the more egregious extremes (e.g.: meth is outlawed).

2.) Social Engineering - believes the society (typically via government) as a 'duty of care' of the population to manage things more overtly, which justified infringing individual liberties. So you could outlaw salt shakers, fast food restaurants, cigarettes, maybe FaceBook, etc... It's more important for the government to make people live healthy than for the people to control their own lives.

This is important. If you make the case that big social media platforms cause some subtle social harms, whether and how someone expects us to respond differs radically based on that perspective.

Mapping individual and specific comments into ideological categories is guaranteed to distract from an actual, meaningful conversation.

 

[drrich2]

That is not why. The reason why is that the Chinese government uses TikTok to spy on US citizens.

Quick question for those of you who use TikTok; what does TikTok know about you besides what videos you access? What data do you have to give them?

 

[drrich2]

Mapping individual and specific comments into ideological categories is guaranteed to distract from an actual, meaningful conversation.

No, it informs them. When people play chess, they have to share the same game board and understanding of the pieces what the objective is - to drive the enemy's king into checkmate. If one guy sits down and tries playing according to the rules of checkers while the opponent tries to play chess, it's not going to work.

It's not the pro-choice/pro-life debate. If one person thinks the unborn aren't human till viable outside the womb and the other thinks they're humans will civil rights from conception, they're going to argue past each other thinking they're making intelligent points while sounding nuts to each other. They don't have a shared 'game board' of the realities of the situation.

Similarly, a utilitarian mindset will establish values, priorities, perceived mandates and policies in a way that a deontologically based person will not (and vice versa).

If you don't understanding someone's value system, an in-depth discussion of a complex ethical/moral topic is likely hamstrung. What seems like a compelling value to you may be a minor concern to me. How we prioritize competing values won't line up.

Actual, meaningful conversation is aided by understanding. Understanding where the other person is coming from is valuable.

 

[heretiq]

No, it informs them. When people play chess, they have to share the same game board and understanding of the pieces what the objective is - to drive the enemy's king into checkmate. If one guy sits down and tries playing according to the rules of checkers while the opponent tries to play chess, it's not going to work.

It's not the pro-choice/pro-life debate. If one person thinks the unborn aren't human till viable outside the womb and the other thinks they're humans will civil rights from conception, they're going to argue past each other thinking they're making intelligent points while sounding nuts to each other. They don't have a shared 'game board' of the realities of the situation.

Similarly, a utilitarian mindset will establish values, priorities, perceived mandates and policies in a way that a deontologically based person will not (and vice versa).

If you don't understanding someone's value system, an in-depth discussion of a complex ethical/moral topic is likely hamstrung. What seems like a compelling value to you may be a minor concern to me. How we prioritize competing values won't line up.

Actual, meaningful conversation is aided by understanding. Understanding where the other person is coming from is valuable.

Trust me. You are not informing me and your mapping of my comments into ideological categories demonstrate a misunderstanding of where I’m coming from. I’ve had decades of direct experience with a variety of philosophies, mythologies, ideologies and worldviews and find that simple direct discussions are much more effective and useful in connecting with others.

 

[drrich2]

You are not informing me and your mapping of my comments into ideological categories demonstrate a misunderstanding of where I’m coming from.

That may well be, and I'm not trying to 'put you (and your views) in a (stereotyped) box.' And at least I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, philosophically speaking. I'm speaking to the broader discussion, including value-based statements by others.

I’ve had decades of direct experience with a variety of philosophies, mythologies, ideologies and worldviews and find that simple direct discussions are much more effective and useful in connecting with others.

Whereas I've watched people argue past each other on topics where they don't share the same value system reference. An article in The New York Times discussed something similar, in that when conservatives and liberals debated perceived problems, a difficulty was that what one side considered important and pressing might hardly be on the other's radar.

Similarly, with the seat belt law example another gave, which is more important, saving lives or respecting the free willed autonomy of adults to self-determine?

In the issue of balancing TikTok access for American adults vs. blocking the potential for ByteDance data collection to inform the Chinese government and dissemination of propaganda, how are these prioritized?

All too often, someone will assert a rather arbitrary position (e.g.: women have the right to choose (they leave off what, though) vs. abortion is murder), thinking they've declared some self-evident moral truth, and be shocked not everyone else can see that. This often leads to vilifying other side as stupid, evil, corrupt, etc... Which undermines civil debate.

I get that drawing linkages to philosophical reference points can be off-putting (given the tribalistic nature of humans), but it helps to try to see the world as the other does.

You are not informing me and your mapping of my comments into ideological categories demonstrate a misunderstanding of where I’m coming from.

So where are you coming from? What value system do you reference to determine how to weigh issues of individual adult autonomy vs. concerns about the public good?

 

[Reason077]

No it is Russian. They are also considered an adversary.

Telegram is not Russian. It was created by Russian entrepreneurs, but they left Russia in 2014, precisely to avoid state intervention in their company. Since 2015 they have been based in the United Arab Emirates.

This is the complete opposite of TikTok, whose owner is not only Chinese and based in China, but strongly associated with and influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.

 

[heretiq]

So where are you coming from? What value system do you reference to determine how to weigh issues of individual adult autonomy vs. concerns about the public good?

I am biased towards symptomatic reasoning vs symbolic reasoning in most cases unless symbolic reasoning is clearly the best mode for the given circumstance.

I find that most who are inclined to abstraction based on value systems do not realize that not only are there different value systems, there are different types of value systems. This is similar to many mathematically inclined individuals only aware of algebra and not that there are multiple algebras.

In this specific case, my perspective is symptomatic: what is the practical, observable effect of perspective A vs perspective B and choose the perspective that creates the greatest social good.

What we have observed recently is the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands (highest death toll of any country in the world) during the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread and rising mental disorder, a worsening level of gun violence, worsening obesity levels and chronic illnesses to name a few.

The common thread between these symptoms is unrestrained individual choice. No amount of abstraction and ideological rationalization (symbolic reasoning) can make this insane dynamic desirable or acceptable.

 

[drrich2]

In this specific case, my perspective is symptomatic: what is the practical, observable effect of perspective A vs perspective B and choose the perspective that creates the greatest social good.

What we have observed recently is the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands (highest death toll of any country in the world) during the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread and rising mental disorder, a worsening level of gun violence, worsening obesity levels and chronic illnesses to name a few.

The common thread between these symptoms is unrestrained individual choice. No amount of abstraction and ideological rationalization (symbolic reasoning) can make this insane dynamic reasonable or acceptable.

Thanks for the explanation. That is solidly utilitarian reasoning.

No amount of abstraction and ideological rationalization (symbolic reasoning) can make this insane dynamic reasonable or acceptable.

A lot depends on how much one values 'unrestrained individual choice.' I know people in the ground over the anti-vax disinformation, people I liked, so to me the cost is real. I'm still not moved to want the government to restrict what messages I'm allowed to listen to because in the government's judgment I make draw the wrong conclusion.

Ironically, it wasn't so terribly long ago that many in the U.S. expressed anger, believing we had been deliberately misled about the merits of entering the 2nd Gulf War (poster child for that, an enraged Al Gore - "He played on our fears!"). From an old New York Times article:

"''He betrayed this country!'' Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. ''He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.''"

And then there's the wonderful historical example, The Pentagon Papers, which the federal government did not want getting out. With the United State's track record, I don't want them deciding what news sources I'm allowed to listen to.

 

[AustinIllini]

Do we really want the government censoring what they're allowed to say to us?

it has nothing to do with what they’re saying and everything to do with what people are giving them.

Corporations are not citizens. Foreign governments are not guaranteed first amendment rights in the US.

Anyone arguing first amendment violations needs to go back to school.

 

[drrich2]

it has nothing to do with what they’re saying and everything to do with what people are giving them.

Please explain your reasoning more. If the issue is what people are giving them, and the people are Americans, the people do have First Amendment Rights.

Corporations are not citizens. Foreign governments are not guaranteed first amendment rights in the US.

So what is the practical real world impact of your reasoning here? Are corporations forbidden from stating views, beliefs, values and so forth?

In terms of free speech protections, what is TikTok/ByteDance 'saying' that would be protected if a U.S. citizen said it that would not be protected if a corporation or foreign government said it?

If China's President Xi issued an 'open letter' to the American people arguing that Taiwan belongs to China, does the U.S. government have the rightful power to act to block American's from being able to read that letter?

I want to get a handle on the practical implications of the position you're stating. This sounds important.

 

[Alameda]

Please explain your reasoning more. If the issue is what people are giving them, and the people are Americans, the people do have First Amendment Rights.


So what is the practical real world impact of your reasoning here? Are corporations forbidden from stating views, beliefs, values and so forth?

In terms of free speech protections, what is TikTok/ByteDance 'saying' that would be protected if a U.S. citizen said it that would not be protected if a corporation or foreign government said it?

If China's President Xi issued an 'open letter' to the American people arguing that Taiwan belongs to China, does the U.S. government have the rightful power to act to block American's from being able to read that letter?

I want to get a handle on the practical implications of the position you're stating. This sounds important.

For starters, a corporation simply is not a person. It can’t be put in prison for crimes it commits, right? It cannot vote in an election. It doesn’t go to the doctor when it’s sick. It’s not buried when it dies. So it is not a person.

Corporations exist to serve their investors, and often, only their large investors. The don’t serve the U.S., or the people, or the government. They exist to serve themselves. And what they do have in abundance is money. And the purpose of having money is to make more money, which increases their value. So if they spend $10 million or $10 billion to influence an election, they do it to make more money. To sell more weapons systems, or more oil, or more pencils. It’s not because they believe it’s good for people, they do it because shareholders and directors demand it.

For example, Apple solders SSD and RAM in their computers, and they charge huge sums for larger configurations. Why is this? Is it to benefit computer owners? The Mac community? The USA? Is it necessary for Apple’s survival as a company? No. It benefits shareholders.

 

[heretiq]

Thanks for the explanation. That is solidly utilitarian reasoning.


A lot depends on how much one values 'unrestrained individual choice.' I know people in the ground over the anti-vax disinformation, people I liked, so to me the cost is real. I'm still not moved to want the government to restrict what messages I'm allowed to listen to because in the government's judgment I make draw the wrong conclusion.

You’re welcome. The concept of unrestrained individual choice is an abstract invention that some are convinced is a real thing that they’re entitled to. Nothing in life is unrestricted except human stupidity and propensity to use symbolic reasoning to invent new absurdities.

Just look around — everything real has limits. How in the world has so many otherwise rational people been convinced that unrestrained individual choice is real and somehow transcendent to the laws of nature?

The 911 and Pentagon Papers examples are demonstrative of the messiness of governance of imperfect people by imperfect people. Good intentions, constantly changing and competing self interests collide to present options and choices that determine our day to day experience. Sometimes we get lucky and most of us like the outcome other times most dislike it and the cycle repeats af nauseum.

No single ideology can arrest this. The best we can do is to build systems of governance that allow experimentation, learning and change that improve the lives of people based on objective outcomes — not robotic pursuit of impractical ideological ideals.

 

[Gasu E.]

If app is banned, I stressed this many times, China will retaliate most likely by banning Apple products from being made, or be used in the country. Or in fact from any American company.

It’s about to become a total trade war from looks of it.

Banning assembly of iPhones in China is not what Chinese retaliation would look like.

 

[delsoul]

“Justice Elena Kagan wasn't a fan of TikTok's argument that its constitutional rights were being violated. "The law is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn't have First Amendment rights," she said.”

OUCH 😂 👋 C’ya, CCP social media!

 

[drrich2]

Justice Elena Kagan wasn't a fan of TikTok's argument that its constitutional rights were being violated. "The law is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn't have First Amendment rights," she said.

Point of interest - what is TikTok prohibited from doing and/or not entitled to do that would not be the case if it did have First Amendment rights? An ACLU site had this to say:

"They argue that the law violates TikTok's and its users' First Amendment rights by shuttering a unique speech platform. TikTok also argues that by unfairly singling out a single platform for adverse treatment, the law violates its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights."

So what exactly will the government outlaw? If I understand from some other posts, the TikTok ap. would disappear from U.S.-based company ap. stores (i.e.: Apple and Google). Can Android people just side load it from a foreign-based site? Can iPhone users in the E.U. side load similarly?

Others indicated one can access it by web browser as an alternative to a dedicated ap. Is this 'ban' going to stop Americans from using TikTok, or just impose inconvenience?

 

[Zest28]

I hate TikTok but it feels like banning an entire website is a serious slippery slope situation.

China is doing the same thing. So what slippery slope?

If China bans websites like Twitter it is fine, but if the USA bans TikTok it is a “slippery” slope.

CCP has accounts on MacRumors?

 

[delsoul]

China is doing the same thing. So what slippery slope?

If China bans websites like Twitter it is fine, but if the USA bans TikTok it is a “slippery” slope.

CCP has accounts on MacRumors?

Absolutely right. The US should call the CCP out and tell them, Tik Tok can stay when Google, FB, YouTube, etc all have open access to chinese citizens in the mainland and other territories. Forces them to show their hypocrisy because the CCP will never allow them full and open access to citizens. God forbid chinese citizens are allowed to fully search for June 4th, 1989 instead of May 35th, 1989z