Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TikTok Ban Looking Likely After U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TikTok just needs to switch to a browser version. And Android users will always be able to download the .apk. TikTok will not suddenly stop working just because one strange country censors it.
I was in Moscow last summer. Instagram is blocked there. Still everybody uses it. Social networks are great for sharing information. So the first information that will be shared after the ban is how to circumvent it. Banning it made it much more interesting.
I was in Moscow last summer. Instagram is blocked there. Still everybody uses it. Social networks are great for sharing information. So the first information that will be shared after the ban is how to circumvent it. Banning it made it much more interesting.
China has always had a censorship-happy government. The US on the other hand has always been about freedom of speech and the government not interfereing in such things.
I don't think the way forward is to do bad things just because China does them too.
China and Russia meddling and being the cause of one candidate over the other is the excuse the groups use to justify that their great and everything is fine and the other side cheated. This is how it gets used to not do anything different but instead find a hanger to throw all of the shortcomings.
TikTok is not in the control of people that have a grasp on the media in the U.S and don't fall under the agreed upon propaganda therefore it's not welcomed, if they admit that publicly then it'll be more respectable than Chinese spying non-sense as if we live in the 60s.
Good. TikTok is a Chinese trojan horse and this bipartisan Congress bill reconginzed that. I’m not even going to get into how TikTok is rotting the brains of most Americans who use it. Also, China has banned American companies like Google for its own reasons. Companies are not people, despite what Citizens United said, and do not have First Amendment rights.
On Jan. 10th, 2025, the New York Times 'The Morning' e-mail digest discussed both sides of the TikTok issue, and both sides had some legit sounding points. This bit caught my attention: "
Critics of the law say that shutting down TikTok — as the government would do if ByteDance refused to sell it — would be an unprecedented infringement on Americans’ speech: Never before has the government eliminated a platform used so widely for communication and commerce."
A number of people in this thread have claimed TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a foreign corporation, and as such has no free speech rights. From this piece, it sounds like the issue is whether Americans have free speech rights they can choose to exercise on this platform, and whether their free speech rights on this platform ought to be protected.
Perhaps the strongest counter point to me is when they said "Perhaps the simplest argument for the law is that the U.S. would not have allowed the Soviet Union to own NBC, Life magazine or a company that collected Americans’ personal information. “Limits on foreign ownership have been a part of federal communications policy for more than a century,” the legal scholar Zephyr Teachout wrote in The Atlantic."
That last bit has interesting ramifications. Via Apple News + I can read foreign publications like the BBC and other U.K.-based content. Perhaps Russia wouldn't be allowed to buy NBC, for example, but I have free access to read foreign publications (I think). There's nothing stopped me from posting videos and text posts to a foreign-based forum.
It's going to be very strange if all the TikTok battle resolves is that we have to use a web browser to access and use the service but can't use an ap.
On the issue of the potential for China to manipulate content, such as suppressing content about Taiwan, did you see the PC Magazine piece posted today:
TikTok as speech
The argument to leave TikTok alone starts with its popularity. About 170 million Americans, equal to half the country’s population, use the app. They entertain themselves, communicate with friends, follow the news, go shopping and operate businesses.Critics of the law say that shutting down TikTok — as the government would do if ByteDance refused to sell it — would be an unprecedented infringement on Americans’ speech: Never before has the government eliminated a platform used so widely for communication and commerce."
A number of people in this thread have claimed TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a foreign corporation, and as such has no free speech rights. From this piece, it sounds like the issue is whether Americans have free speech rights they can choose to exercise on this platform, and whether their free speech rights on this platform ought to be protected.
Perhaps the strongest counter point to me is when they said "Perhaps the simplest argument for the law is that the U.S. would not have allowed the Soviet Union to own NBC, Life magazine or a company that collected Americans’ personal information. “Limits on foreign ownership have been a part of federal communications policy for more than a century,” the legal scholar Zephyr Teachout wrote in The Atlantic."
That last bit has interesting ramifications. Via Apple News + I can read foreign publications like the BBC and other U.K.-based content. Perhaps Russia wouldn't be allowed to buy NBC, for example, but I have free access to read foreign publications (I think). There's nothing stopped me from posting videos and text posts to a foreign-based forum.
It's going to be very strange if all the TikTok battle resolves is that we have to use a web browser to access and use the service but can't use an ap.
On the issue of the potential for China to manipulate content, such as suppressing content about Taiwan, did you see the PC Magazine piece posted today:
Zuckerberg: Biden Admin Officials Would 'Scream' and 'Curse' at Facebook Staff
Looks like our own government acts to pressure a popular social media platform owned by a private company to censor content to manipulate public opinion.
You jumped into the middle of a conversation and altered the conversation to try and get across your point. OK, I guess you made it? I don't want to invest the energy to engage with you because I don't care about the point you are trying to make. So this will be the only thing I say on this matter...
In summary of everything you just said, life works the way it does today. Many people analyze it. Many people complain about it. Few people are involved in real change. Trying to put theories about the "why" to justify a point of view is the stance of people NOT involved in the actual work. This is what all of what you wrote FEELS like. I don't know you, but it feels like you have never held a governmental office, it feels like you have never had to feel the burden and toil of trying to make change. So instead you have elaborate exposition on why everyone who has done the work to make a difference, follows a pattern that can then be put into a neat little box and then made to seem wise or foolish or some other blend to make some intellectual or idealogical point. Cool. I guess you accomplished what you set out to do.
It's been a multi-perspective conversation throughout; I didn't alter it, I added a perspective to it, as others have. We all try to get across our points. In order to do so, I expanded to draw on analogous examples/issues that also illustrate the conflict between those who prioritize more personal liberty vs. more paternalistic State control (since any society is a 'shade of gray,' not an absolute).
In the United States, Russia, Iran... Just because life 'works' the way it does today doesn't mean it's good and right.
I would hope people engaged in changing the society in which we live would put considerable effort into the 'whys' that justify points of view. It's important. In America today there's a pervasive cynicism amongst some that upper level politicians are basically power hungry sociopaths on both sides - I hope that's not true.
What's more, the people who are subject to the rule of higher government powers (in a democracy where they are supposed to be accountable to us) ought to scrutinize the moral justifications of the laws put upon them.
That 'point' is there is a moral value system one uses to determine what it right and what is wrong, not everyone shares the same one, and different nations often have cultural histories that back one or another (e.g.: utilitarian or deontological) more.
No, I'm not a politician and I don't craft governmental policy. How many people in this thread are?
Ironically in light of your statements, this a conversation on Mac Rumors in the Political News section where members of the public, mostly not politicians or crafters of political policies, are free to join together and collectively discuss and analyze topics, including this one, to articulate and express ideas, consider and at times challenge each other's ideas, seeking to gain and share ideological understanding.
This is not the floor of the U.S. Congress working on a bill or the Supreme Court ruling on a case.
Sometimes participating in public discussion of issues is the 'work to make a difference' that most of us do.
While the points you find compelling may have already been covered by others, on what basis do you believe TikTok should've been (and should be) banned? What is your reasoning?
Thank you. Perfectly stated. Governance is difficult. Vilifying or obfuscating earnest attempts at practical governance or turning the hard work of governing into intellectual point scoring is easy. It’s also unhelpful and dangerous because it floods the space with noise that obscures meaningful conversation about what is probably the most important topic that Americans should be discussing: the corrosive effect of social media on core American principles and ideals.
Last edited:
And therefore warrants vigorous efforts to analyze and understand both policy and the thinking behind it.
The United States was not founded on a philosophy of trusting government; not only were 3 separate branches of government established as checks on one another's power, but the journalism industry (the press) arose as an additional check, an observer and challenger of powerful forces in society. Disputing governance is a big part of what led to the formation of this nation.
I'm not obfuscating; my aim has been to analyze and clarify.
Probably according to your value system, which not everyone may share, or prioritize concerns in the way you do. Ironically, one of the core American principles and ideals is that of free speech, and there's concern the government (as per the Zuckerberg-related article linked earlier) acted to interfere with that to some extent. Whether you agree or disagree with what they did, or the accuracy of Zuckerberg's report, it's relevant to this discussion.
It's helpful in the pursuit of understanding. Sounds like the corrosive effect on social media on 'core American principles and values' that you allege is what you want focused on, but it's not the only issue relevant to this discussion.
Does this basically mean you don't want anyone here criticizing the Biden Administration's alleged pressure (at times vehement and excessive, per Mark Zuckerberg) for censorship in social media (e.g.: FaceBook) during the COVID-19 pandemic and using that as a counter point on the basis of hypocrisy to challenge the current effort to shut down TikTok in part on the grounds the Chinese government might potentially exercise censorship to influence American public opinion? Just trust the American government and fight social media on the grounds it allegedly has corrosive effect of social media on core American principles and ideals, so down with TikTok.
Your statement was a big vague, so please clarify. Is that an accurate summation, or is your meaning different?
I think we need some education on the First Amendment, business, current status of trade wars, how hostile nations seek to infiltrate other nations, and a whole bunch of other subjects. Then maybe discussions like this won’t be so painful to read. Kudos to those of you who are actually knowledgable about that which you speak of.
Maybe this will help with the first point you raise, at least for those with access to (whether on a trial basis or paid subscription) to the New York Times. The NYT in a recent The Morning e-mail digest identified Jameel Jaffer and Genevieve Lakier as two First Amendment experts who wrote in a Times Opinion essay about this issue of free speech and TikTok dated Dec. 10, 2024. The title is The Supreme Court Must Intervene in the TikTok Case, if anyone wants to search for it by name.
I'll post a few excerpts here:
"The ruling is bad news for TikTok, its China-based parent, ByteDance, and its approximately 170 million American users. It also seriously weakens the First Amendment, and by extension our democracy, at an exceptionally perilous time."
"Even if the court is right about TikTok’s susceptibility to manipulation, it is wrong about the First Amendment and the values that undergird it. For almost a century the courts have interpreted the First Amendment to strongly disfavor paternalistic speech regulation. Except in narrow circumstances, the First Amendment prevents the government from protecting listeners from speech it views as manipulative, particularly when it comes to politics."
"The effect of the ruling, however, is to substitute definite manipulation by our own government for feared manipulation by China. This is not a result that the First Amendment permits."
The authors' credentials from the article: Jameel Jaffer is La lawyer and the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Genevieve Lakier is professor of law at the University of Chicago and a former senior visiting research scholar at the Knight Institute.
There's a good deal more to the article, and of course there are perspectives on this issue outside of their focus. That said, we have 2 experts (who are actually knowledgeable about that which they speak) in a reputable journalistic publication asserting that there is a First Amendment/Free Speech issue here.
I think I’m done with this thread — as every statement appears to be hijacked and transformed with bot-like efficiency into one person’s ideological talking point.
Because the Communist Chinese use it to gather information on us to be used in the future. They have no conscience and are not gathering this information without a purpose.
Thanks for responding. Some logistic concerns arise.
1.) We're all human. If the Chinese Communist Party is that bad, be mindful our government is staffed with the same species - we're all human.
2.) A key difference between our government and the CCP is a system of checks & balances plus a free press aiding in an informed public to whom the government is accountable by elections. The freedom of that public to voluntarily engage with outside platforms where the U.S. government doesn't have behind-the-scenes leverage to unofficially censor (e.g.: FaceBook), and perspectives different from our own are considered, is potentially a 'check and balance' of sorts.
That's not just a Chinese or TikTok thing. Some use foreign sources like the BBC for some of their news with an international perspective. Would the U.S. government try to block us from being able to read English-translation versions of Russian or Iranian newspapers online, if available?
3.) The reporting I've seen indicated the concern wasn't that the CCP is actively collecting data on Americans but rather potentially could and/or use the platform for propaganda, and the concern about what is going on now is that content the CCP wouldn't like (e.g.: Taiwan-related) can be hard to find on TikTok.
4.) This data the CCP might get is what? Video watching patterns? Seems they could buy it off an American social media platform or hire a marketing research agency. Or just stick a 'mole' employee in FaceBook, etc...
There are legitimate concerns about potential risks and they bear watching. That said, we're talking about the U.S. government trying to ban near half our population from voluntarily engaging with a foreign platform on what sounds like pretty shaky grounds.
I wonder how much anti-TikTok sentiment of some (not all) is rooted, not in 'national security' concerns, but animosity toward social media platforms and this is simply an excuse to tear one down? How many people would love to see FaceBook destroyed even though no one forces them to use it, because they don't want others to be able to?
I quit reading right after “If the Chinese Communist party was that bad”.
Unfortunate, because an open minded exchange of ideas and views is worthwhile. What the CCP teaches us about political corruption and abuse of power is good to keep in mind when looking at our own government. The worse they are, the worse our own has the potential to be. Shutting down platforms the government doesn't like opens a potential path for abuse.
Why is "China does it" a justification for the U.S. doing something? If you think the CCP is authoritarian, shouldn't the U.S. not do something that they would do? The "slippery slope" is that this isn't something we want the U.S. government doing. I don't live in China; I live in the U.S. So my concern is with the U.S. government becoming more authoritarian. I already know China's government is authoritarian; that's precisely the point. I don't want the U.S. government to act like the Chinese government and ban a social media platform.
If your only means of contending with this argument is to accuse the person making it of being a CCP plant, then you're just obfuscating.
Spot on. The desire to ban TikTok predates October 7th and its aftermath, but the platforming of Palestinian perspectives is for sure what pushed that desire into the forefront.
Last edited: