TikTok Closer to Potential U.S. Ban as House Passes Bill Requiring Sale

[Ceviche Lover]

And here you go, the real reason why want to ban TikTok:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767911324141449685

Told you guys it has nothing to do with ‘spying’ and everything to do with control and censorship. There is a reason why governments want to take down TikTok and Twitter: it has nothing to do with spying or misinformation, and everything to do with being able to take down whatever content they don’t like.

This is why it is important to question things and not just believe propaganda that news outlets publish.

 

[Funny Apple Man]

Ah finally. ☺️

Come on American corpos, do something good for once and do not buy Tiktok!

 

[zakarhino]

If not a forced sale, then an outright ban/firewall will suffice for me. The TikTok issue you describe is indisputably problematic.

The fact that yourself and others find it acceptable for young people to learn anything from TikTok - at least the U.S. version - is, in my view, almost as frightening as the young people using it for that purpose.

Why does TikTok scare you so much? Not a rhetorical or ironic question, I'm actually curious as to what kind of content on TikTok concerns you to the extent that "anything" on the platform is poison for young people.

Personally I've found plenty of content on TikTok that I disagree with and that I think is bad for young people but compared to practically every other platform out there it's better at least in terms of being honest about a lot of current domestic and foreign policy issues politically and economically. The thing is a lot of the 'bad' stuff on TikTok is really a reflection of our culture that will persist even if TikTok was banned.

EDIT: I also find it ironic you're talking about installing a US "Great Firewall" to protect us from foreign social media LMAO that's literally what China did and everyone in the US thought it was a great crime against humanity and freedom. All of a sudden we're worried about China and now we want to start making a Great Firewall of our own.

 

[Funny Apple Man]

calling china a bad actor to justify legislation is the oldest form of fear-mongering US politicians have available to them.

"communism is bad and is lurking in the shadows everywhere you go" is the only political language the US has spoken since like, the 50s.

They are though. As a lefty myself, I don't support the CCP and their antics.

They're not communists or even socialists as they claim to be, they're much closer to fascism. So it is appropriate to call them a bad actor.

 

[zakarhino]

First of all, the US government has no ownership of Apple, so there’s nothing to divest. Apple is its own company with no parent or partial owners. AFAIK, there are no government officials on Apple’s board or in its management team. Second, China has already banned iPhones from use by government officials due to security concerns. In general, the US government doesn’t own very many companies. The only ones I can think of are partial ownership or subsidizing of PBS, NPR, FDIC, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. I believe the term used is quasi-governmental agencies. None of those operate outside the US.

3 of the 8 Apple board members are from institutions that are directly in cahoots with the US government lol. Blackrock, Northrop Grumman (???), and The Aerospace Corporation (a "non profit" defense org that's run by former higher ups from the DOD, White House, etc.)

Drawing the line at "well they're not current active government employees" or something is meaningless if we know for a fact that in the US the relationship between these sort of institutions and the government is as tight nit as CPC members on the boards of Chinese companies are with the CPC. Our government isn't like theirs, the relationship between corporate and government works differently.

Do you honestly believe Northrop Grumman and Blackrock have zero dog in the race when it comes to collaboration with our government on anti China maneuvers? For God's sake Northrup Grumman is one of the parties actively campaigning for a Taiwanese proxy war and Blackrock are one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Ukraine war (a war designed to weaken China, ultimately speaking).

Remember we're being told this is about national security, this is not about whether or not a government partially owns something; that's merely the mechanism of control that China uses. If the mechanism of control works differently in the US, China have every reason to be just as concerned (if not more) of companies that have this level of direct influence from so-called "Permanent Washington" actors.

 

[tobybrut]

I don’t imagine you’d give ByteDance a pass if their board was full of former government officials.

They have active government officials on their board, not former.

So your strategy for national security to to know the good guys and bad guys in advance?

That’s why they’re called ”adversaries”. Duh. You don’t trust adversaries. Do you realize just how silly that question of yours is? We know who the bad guys are. You don’t pass laws like this for friendly countries. Note the law doesn’t specifically target TikTok by name but rather specifies criteria for which a foreign adversary owns at least 20% of a company and has influence over the management team. The president has discretion for determining whether foreign company that meet those criteria are a security threat. The law passed by the House lists four adversary countries. The four adversaries listed are North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China. No other country would be affected by the law if passed and signed. Why wouldn’t you want a law on the books to protect against those particular countries? Have you actually read the law or seen the details about it to know the law specifies the countries that would be affected?

This doesn't do that-- that's my point. As long as there is trade in personal data, as long as data sits in undersecured databases, it's easy to get. I get a letter a month saying some company I wasn't even aware I was doing business with through a contract arrangement with another, has been breached. The penalty is generally the cost of that letter and watching my credit report of a year, if I give them more of my personal information so they can access my credit report.

Your proposal doesn’t make anything more secure. The law in question removes TikTok as a company that can even gather that information. If TikTok doesn’t have that data, China can’t get something that doesn’t exist. If they’re sold rather than banned, you can prevent them from just picking up a phone and telling the ByteDance CEO to send over the data. There’s nothing more secure than non-existent data the CCP can’t get their hands on. That’s what the legislation is designed to do. If it’s never collected, it can’t be shared.

If personal data is a matter of national security, treat it as such. Treat it like we would yellow cake or aluminum tubes. Ensure it's locked down and be ruthless in enforcing that. With a law like that, sharing your TikTok views would truly be espionage, and there's be cause to go after them.

Governments can secure their own data behind the toughest encryption possible and the most secure networks, but government doesn’t control what American companies do to secure their data. TikTok sure isn’t going to secure their network or databases against their CCP masters. But our government can recognize a big huge security hole with a foreign company where the CCP doesn’t even have to hack into ByteDance. They just have to ask for the data and they get it.

Every country has laws like that, including the US.

Except under US law and for most friendly countries, the government can’t just take the information unless they get a court order or subpoena. Democratic countries have safeguards in place. Even the NSA, which records all communications within the United States, cannot access the data they record without a court order. There are also masking laws to protect the privacy of the innocent.

If someone takes information not allowed under our law, they are typically arrested. None of the adversarial countries have any such protections. Those dictatorships can just get what they want. You seem to put an awful lot of trust in adversarial countries, whereas I don’t trust those adversarial countries any further than I can throw a bus. Stop them from having an opportunity to get our data simply by not allowing them to even collect it, or alternatively if the company is sold, make it a whole lot harder for them to get it than just picking up a phone.

 

[tobybrut]

3 of the 8 Apple board members are from institutions that are directly in cahoots with the US government lol. Blackrock, Northrop Grumman (???), and The Aerospace Corporation (a "non profit" defense org that's run by former higher ups from the DOD, White House, etc.)

Drawing the line at "well they're not current active government employees" or something is meaningless if we know for a fact that in the US the relationship between these sort of institutions and the government is as tight nit as CPC members on the boards of Chinese companies are with the CPC. Our government isn't like theirs, the relationship between corporate and government works differently.

Do you honestly believe Northrop Grumman and Blackrock have zero dog in the race when it comes to collaboration with our government on anti China maneuvers? For God's sake Northrup Grumman is one of the parties actively campaigning for a Taiwanese proxy war and Blackrock are one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Ukraine war (a war designed to weaken China, ultimately speaking).

Remember we're being told this is about national security, this is not about whether or not a government partially owns something; that's merely the mechanism of control that China uses. If the mechanism of control works differently in the US, China have every reason to be just as concerned (if not more) of companies that have this level of direct influence from so-called "Permanent Washington" actors.

If you want to rein in defense contractors and financial institutions and their influences on politicians, be my guest. I would cheer you on, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion since we’re talking about banning a company owned by a foreign adversary who also happens to have active CCP government officials on their board. While I wouldn’t exactly trust BlackRock or Northrop Grumman officials, they’re not government, and every company has a right to lobby its government. When you get to Congress, please pass a bill banning the revolving door of politicians and lobbyists. I’d support you. But I would say, “so what?” when it comes to this pending legislation.

The bulk of the arguments I’m hearing from those opposed to this legislation is that our government and corporations suck, too, so we shouldn’t ban companies from foreign adversaries who hate our guts and would love to see our country fall. How is that a good argument? You want to push lobbyist reform, I’m with you, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. All four countries listed in the bill as foreign adversaries are all willing to go to war with us and wouldn’t bat an eye if they killed every one of us, but we’re comparing them to corporations in this country we don’t like?

 

[mogens]

This is not about spying it’s about controlling:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768641166377955571

 

[Analog Kid]

The bulk of the arguments I’m hearing from those opposed to this legislation is that our government and corporations suck, too, so we shouldn’t ban companies from foreign adversaries who hate our guts and would love to see our country fall.

That is not at all what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that you should focus on core principles and address actual issues. "China bad, must poke in eye" is not a legislation strategy, though it is a campaign strategy. It's been quite successful getting you engaged. Just looking at the tail end of that sentence, I'm not sure which way the hate is actually flowing...

If personal data is a national security vulnerability, address it broadly. There's no point locking a door where there isn't a wall. I don't agree with a lot of Chinese policy, but in the end I'm much more directly impacted other governments and corporations that have access to that data.

 

[Chuckeee]

Why does TikTok scare you so much? Not a rhetorical or ironic question, I'm actually curious as to what kind of content on TikTok concerns you to the extent that "anything" on the platform is poison for young people.

Personally I've found plenty of content on TikTok that I disagree with and that I think is bad for young people but compared to practically every other platform out there it's better at least in terms of being honest about a lot of current domestic and foreign policy issues politically and economically. The thing is a lot of the 'bad' stuff on TikTok is really a reflection of our culture that will persist even if TikTok was banned.

EDIT: I also find it ironic you're talking about installing a US "Great Firewall" to protect us from foreign social media LMAO that's literally what China did and everyone in the US thought it was a great crime against humanity and freedom. All of a sudden we're worried about China and now we want to start making a Great Firewall of our own.

If it is about objectionable content posted on a foreign owned social media site, why not go after Telegraph?

 

[Supermallet]

If not a forced sale, then an outright ban/firewall will suffice for me. The TikTok issue you describe is indisputably problematic.

The fact that yourself and others find it acceptable for young people to learn anything from TikTok - at least the U.S. version - is, in my view, almost as frightening as the young people using it for that purpose.

If you want to get grossly inaccurate and deliberately distorted information online, you certainly don't need TikTok for that. Why focus on TikTok as especially bad when the internet is rife with bad actors?

 

[tobybrut]

That is not at all what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that you should focus on core principles and address actual issues. "China bad, must poke in eye" is not a legislation strategy, though it is a campaign strategy. It's been quite successful getting you engaged. Just looking at the tail end of that sentence, I'm not sure which way the hate is actually flowing...

If personal data is a national security vulnerability, address it broadly. There's no point locking a door where there isn't a wall. I don't agree with a lot of Chinese policy, but in the end I'm much more directly impacted other governments and corporations that have access to that data.

Dude, I’m Chinese. Be careful when you’re assigning words like “hate”. Is there one American citizen in this country who trusts the CCP? You know, the communist dictators?

 

[Analog Kid]

Dude, I’m Chinese. Be careful when you’re assigning words like “hate”. Is there one American citizen in this country who trusts the CCP? You know, the communist dictators?

Remember this is not an American forum, to begin with-- you'll hear a lot of international points of view as was recently evident when the EU got busy. As for your warnings on using the word "hate", you introduced it to the conversation along with constant repetition of the word "adversary". I'm not sure if you're implying you're somehow immune to it.

The point you keep missing is that we shouldn't trust anyone. I don't trust the Chinese government, I don't trust Facebook, and I don't trust Facebook to not sell data to the Chinese government or an intermediary. I don't trust RT to behave any better in the interests of Russia. The reasons I'm seeing given for banning TikTok alone are weak-- I agree privacy is a major concern, across all of these products. I agree misinformation is a concern, across all these products. Until there's legislative interest in the actual issue, this looks to me like electioneering and jingoistic projection of markets.

 

[zakarhino]

If it is about objectionable content posted on a foreign owned social media site, why not go after Telegraph?

Good one 🤣

 

[DustinDev47]

Why does TikTok scare you so much? Not a rhetorical or ironic question, I'm actually curious as to what kind of content on TikTok concerns you to the extent that "anything" on the platform is poison for young people.

Personally I've found plenty of content on TikTok that I disagree with and that I think is bad for young people but compared to practically every other platform out there it's better at least in terms of being honest about a lot of current domestic and foreign policy issues politically and economically. The thing is a lot of the 'bad' stuff on TikTok is really a reflection of our culture that will persist even if TikTok was banned.

EDIT: I also find it ironic you're talking about installing a US "Great Firewall" to protect us from foreign social media LMAO that's literally what China did and everyone in the US thought it was a great crime against humanity and freedom. All of a sudden we're worried about China and now we want to start making a Great Firewall of our own.

It doesn't scare me; it disturbs me. I have already named the examples of the NyQuil chicken and the Tide Pod challenge, along with lots of the content persuading and/or convincing young people that they have mental illness.

To be clear, I'm certain that you could point me to numerous examples of wonderful, educational, factual information available on TikTok. But by and large, that's not why TikTok has 170 million U.S. users (or whatever the number is).

If it is about objectionable content posted on a foreign owned social media site, why not go after Telegraph?

If you want to get grossly inaccurate and deliberately distorted information online, you certainly don't need TikTok for that. Why focus on TikTok as especially bad when the internet is rife with bad actors?

The bulk of the objections to this legislation seem to call out us proponents for singling TikTok out so let's settle that now: I don't think many of us in favor of this legislation would resist an effort to pursue all the suspect platforms, including Telegraph. This legislation is focused on the major player in the short-form video space and for many good reasons which have already been discussed (I'm not suggesting YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, IG/SnapChat Stories aren't major).

This attitude of "well, <name your platform> is doing it too so let's not do anything at all" and/or "well, <name your platform> is doing it too so let's argue about it endlessly leading to an outcome of no action whatsoever" is lazy, uninspiring, and unpersuasive. If - in your mind - going after the other platforms as well somehow vindicates the TikTok ban, then let's go after the others too.

We cannot do all that needs to be done, but we should absolutely do all that we can do.

 

[Supermallet]

It doesn't scare me; it disturbs me. I have already named the examples of the NyQuil chicken and the Tide Pod challenge, along with lots of the content persuading and/or convincing young people that they have mental illness.

To be clear, I'm certain that you could point me to numerous examples of wonderful, educational, factual information available on TikTok. But by and large, that's not why TikTok has 170 million U.S. users (or whatever the number is).






The bulk of the objections to this legislation seem to call out us proponents for singling TikTok out so let's settle that now: I don't think many of us in favor of this legislation would resist an effort to pursue all the suspect platforms, including Telegraph. This legislation is focused on the major player in the short-form video space and for many good reasons which have already been discussed (I'm not suggesting YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, IG/SnapChat Stories aren't major).

This attitude of "well, <name your platform> is doing it too so let's not do anything at all" and/or "well, <name your platform> is doing it too so let's argue about it endlessly leading to an outcome of no action whatsoever" is lazy, uninspiring, and unpersuasive. If - in your mind - going after the other platforms as well somehow vindicates the TikTok ban, then let's go after the others too.

We cannot do all that needs to be done, but we should absolutely do all that we can do.

What I find unpersuasive about your argument is that TikTok is being specifically targeted because of supposed affiliations to China, not because it promotes bad behaviors via dumb trends. And it’s happening right at a moment where the US is losing the narrative momentum on a genocide that the government has the power to stop and refuses to do, and TikTok is the largest disseminator of information that counteracts the American and Israeli propaganda. There is nothing about this that’s designed to prevent dumb trends that inspire bad behaviors, and even if TikTok stopped being available in the US tomorrow, that content would migrate to other available platforms faster than you can blink. So this won’t address or make a dent in your stated concerns.

 

[tobybrut]

Remember this is not an American forum, to begin with-- you'll hear a lot of international points of view as was recently evident when the EU got busy. As for your warnings on using the word "hate", you introduced it to the conversation along with constant repetition of the word "adversary". I'm not sure if you're implying you're somehow immune to it.

When did I EVER use the word, hate, or any phrase similar to that except in response to your accusation? I went back through every single post I made on this issue in case I said something accidentally and I never expressed any antipathy towards anyone, nor hint at it. Distrust, yes, but that's what you do with adversaries. You said you distrust everyone, which is not a bad attitude to have when it comes to geopolitics, but I'm not accusing you of hating anyone. You're the only one throwing around that word. You're essentially accusing me of hating China. My father was born in Hunan Province in China. My mother was born in Taiwan, making me 100% Chinese. I was born over there. I immigrated to the US when I was a child. Why would I hate my origins? Yet you throw around accusations because I used a legal term? I take that accusation rather personally, especially since you didn't know my background when you started throwing that word around cavalierly. And here you go, doubling down.

"Adversary" IS IN THE BILL passed by the House as a legal definition. That's why I use the term, because this thread is all about that bill with it being in the title of this article. It specifically outlines which countries are in the list of adversary nations. If the bill had used the term, "geopolitical antagonist" or something similar, I'd have used that term, but adversary is the term the bill uses.

Here is the full name of the bill that passed the House 352-65: “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”

 

[DustinDev47]

What I find unpersuasive about your argument is that TikTok is being specifically targeted because of supposed affiliations to China, not because it promotes bad behaviors via dumb trends. And it’s happening right at a moment where the US is losing the narrative momentum on a genocide that the government has the power to stop and refuses to do, and TikTok is the largest disseminator of information that counteracts the American and Israeli propaganda. There is nothing about this that’s designed to prevent dumb trends that inspire bad behaviors, and even if TikTok stopped being available in the US tomorrow, that content would migrate to other available platforms faster than you can blink. So this won’t address or make a dent in your stated concerns.

I didn't make that argument so I'm not sure how you could find it unpersuasive. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that "Chinese espionage" may be the scapegoat for other concerns involving TikTok leading to the introduction of the legislation, which I personally find acceptable because it achieves an objective I support. I would, however, invite you to keep your opinions on Gaza and Israel to yourself. This isn't the place for that discussion and frankly your apparent emotional connection to that issue may be causing you to view this legislation through that lens.

 

[redbeard331]

Shouldn’t we be more worried about the app being sold to a bankster so they can silence info about the ongoing genocide in Gaza?

Or that our own government spies on us and has people convinced that the threat is another country halfway around the world?

The US Is Openly Stockpiling Dirt on All Its Citizens

A newly declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reveals that the federal government is buying troves of data about Americans.

www.wired.com

 

[JBGoode]

Dude, I’m Chinese. Be careful when you’re assigning words like “hate”. Is there one American citizen in this country who trusts the CCP? You know, the communist dictators?

Yes, he's orange, running for president, and makes it no secret that he loves Putin, et al.

 

[Macaholic868]

Hopefully this dies in the Senate or isn’t signed into law by Biden. I don’t see how you can ban it or force a sale without proof it’s turning over this data and it’s being used for nefarious purposes by the Chinese government. If you don’t think we collect the same or similar data from Facebook, X, etc. for national intelligence and sometimes law enforcement purposes then I’ve got a bridge in New York to sell you.

I don’t use TickTok and never will but it should be my choice unless they are clearly up to no good and that has yet to be proven. If the US government knows something we don’t it should be made public and I’ll happily change my tune but “trust me” from the current group of clowns on both sides of the isle in the House isn’t going to cut it when it comes to curbing my first amendment rights to say whatever I want to whoever or whatever person or platform that I want when I want to. Congress can go play in traffic on this one…

 

[Supermallet]

I didn't make that argument so I'm not sure how you could find it unpersuasive. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that "Chinese espionage" may be the scapegoat for other concerns involving TikTok leading to the introduction of the legislation, which I personally find acceptable because it achieves an objective I support. I would, however, invite you to keep your opinions on Gaza and Israel to yourself. This isn't the place for that discussion and frankly your apparent emotional connection to that issue may be causing you to view this legislation through that lens.

It doesn’t achieve your objectives because it doesn’t address the things you actually object to. Your “the ends justify the means” mentality won’t even get you the ends you desire! So you set a bad precedent for the aspects you don’t actually care about and don’t achieve what you actually do care about. Sounds like a bad deal all around.

And given that TikTok is the number one source of information for many people about Gaza that isn’t coming from American or Israeli propaganda channels, it is completely relevant to discuss here. The Biden admin is actively alienating significant amounts of voters and a big part of that is coming from people being able to see direct footage of the genocide, which contradicts what American and Israeli authorities say. It doesn’t seem like coincidence that the push for this legislation happened after the Biden admin entrenched itself in this godawful slaughter and the uncommitted movement has been taking off: https://www.startribune.com/minneso...ning-sign-to-democrats-in-the-fall/600351458/

While you’re whinging about the NyQuil challenge or whatever, some of us are actually paying attention to what’s going on in the world.

 

[splifingate]

The reasons I'm seeing given for banning TikTok alone are weak-- I agree privacy is a major concern, across all of these products. I agree misinformation is a concern, across all these products. Until there's legislative interest in the actual issue, this looks to me like electioneering and jingoistic projection of markets.

Hear. Hear.

Symptomatic treatment does not address the underlying illness inherent in the collection (and sharing) of our private data.

Congress Should Give Up on Unconstitutional TikTok Bans

Congress’ unfounded plan to ban TikTok under the guise of protecting our data is back, this time in the form of a new bill—the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” H.R. 7521 — which has gained a dangerous amount of momentum in Congress. This bipartisan...

www.eff.org

"User data will still be collected by numerous platforms—possibly even TikTok after a forced sale—and it will still be sold to data brokers who can then sell it elsewhere, just as they do now."

Kill the Sock, and the puppet gets away...

 

[Analog Kid]

When did I EVER use the word, hate, or any phrase similar to that except in response to your accusation?

foreign adversaries who hate our guts and would love to see our country fall.

Nobody accused you of hating your origins. It's a clever rhetorical trick to use "adversary" to mean the Chinese government hating the US nation, and then redefine it to mean your heritage when I point to your own over the top language. Who you are doesn't matter to this discussion.

"Adversary" IS IN THE BILL passed by the House as a legal definition. That's why I use the term,

Accepting the bill's language as your own and using it persistently, which is what I mean by having gotten you engaged.

This has gone from being a debate of ideas to something more personal, so I'm going to leave it here. You're clearly offended at some deeper level than the merits of and reasons for the bill, which wasn't my intent. I feel you've misinterpreted my words, intentionally or not, but I apologize if I left enough ambiguity in my phrasing to allow that to happen.

 

[tobybrut]

Nobody accused you of hating your origins. It's a clever rhetorical trick to use "adversary" to mean the Chinese government hating the US nation, and then redefine it to mean your heritage when I point to your own over the top language. Who you are doesn't matter to this discussion.

It is standard fare these days to accuse people of being a word i would not use here. So yes, it does matter to that discussion. The word I’m referring to is tossed around casually to be used against anyone who disagrees with the accuser. I’ll accept you didn’t mean to do that, so that matter is closed.