US Senate passes TikTok divestment-or-ban bill

[indigo0086]

They (either political wind that blows in) will use this as precedent and apply it to other businesses it sees as an ideological or technical "danger"

[poulpy123]

I don't like tiktok but the hypocrisy is insane

[valleyjo]

What do you mean? China has banned all US social media. On the simple grounds of reciprocity (which afaik is a generally accepted foreign policy strategy) this ban seems justified.

[arsenico]

What's the hypocrisy here?

[bloggie]

Can you explain? TikTok is banned in China too.

[fernandotakai]

you realize this has happened before right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr#Divesture_and_public_li...

[r721]

Other discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139794

[throwaway4good]

Who in the US could realistically buy it? And how could ByteDance sell TikTok without selling its Chinese counterpart Douyin (that it shares its codebase with)?

[richeyryan]

It seems like the move is to force ByteDance to set up a company incorporated wholly in the United States, which would then be subject to the oversight of the US government. Then, Byte Dance would lease the IP surrounding TikTok to this separate company. All the US customer data would be siloed on US servers and perused by US agencies and Byte Dance would still get their revenue from the US market. I don't know if the close association with ByteDance and China would still make that sort of arrangement a target of the US government.

[throwaway4good]

As it is now ByteDance is owned by 60% mostly US investors and 40% by mostly Chinese founder and employees.

Would it be ok with this law if they brought down the 40% to 20% by an IPO in Singapore or the UK?

[presentation]

Facebook (fold it into Instagram)? Google (fold it into YouTube Shorts)? Elon Musk if he wants to lose even more money? Or any other very rich big tech company that wants to have an insanely addictive social media app? If nobody buys it then it will lose much of its value anyway by not being usable by a huge moneyed market which will apply downwards pressure on the price as buyers play chicken with each other. Plenty of buyers.

[ChrisArchitect]

[dupe]

More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681

[throwaway4good]

Assuming Biden signs this this week - would Trump be able to undo it assuming he wins? Essentially making this an election subject.

[perihelions]

Likely yes, because "determination of the President" occurs five times in the text of bill,

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

[Dalewyn]

No. The POTUS as part of the Executive Branch serves to Execute laws Legislated by Congress as the Legislative Branch.

The Supreme Court or a lower court could Judge the law to be unconstitutional as the Judiciary Branch, and to that end the POTUS can nominate judges and the Senate can approve or deny them.

The only thing POTUS can unilaterally enact and/or revoke are Executive Orders, which themselves are grounded in laws Legislated by Congress and Judged by the courts as necessary.

[drpossum]

No, because in the US congress needs to act to repeal a law. He would not be able to "undo" it by himself.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Biden said he will sign it this morning. Nobody can undo it without a new bill passing through congress to undo it.

[t0mas88]

Imagine Europe forcing a sale of the European side of Meta or Google because they have a lot of data on EU citizens...

[presentation]

Though China already has banned plenty of western apps under the same premise. Plenty of precedence on the other side.

[a_random_canuck]

Because Meta and Google are weaponized by a dictatorship?

How can people really be so blind to the enormous threat posed by allowing hostile dictatorships unfettered access to our eyeballs and devices within our own borders.

[a_humean]

I mean... that isn't outside of the realm of possibility honestly. A lot of European states and the EU parliament have been making noises that could lead down that path. EU states actually take user data seriously, and its not like the US firms have been covering themselves in glory in that regard.

[hackerlight]

Yes an ally having access to sensitive data is exactly the same situation as an authoritarian rival having access.

[4ggr0]

Why would specifically zionists want to ban TikTok?

[uyzstvqs]

TikTok is concerning. With it's data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory. Given that China is a communist dictatorship with a thing for propaganda, and where government is always involved with companies, I believe that this is mostly justified.

[Voultapher]

As a non US citizen the cognitive dissonance at play here is astonishing, but sadly not surprising anymore.

All governments play the propaganda game, no need for autocrats. On my phone right now, but if you want I can pull up sources. One painfully clear example is the war in Iraq. Look at how the US Government portrays itself in that regard, as the invasion force and violent oppressor or as the glorious savior and bringer of democracy and freedom?

[pjc50]

Facebook is concerning. With its data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory.

(oh wait, that was the Cambridge Analytica fiasco)

[presentation]

If they’re claiming the First Amendment, they’re saying they’re not just a passive facilitator of communication but communicating themselves, which seems to validate it as a state propaganda arm.

[schoen]

Maybe if they're asserting their own first amendment rights, although I doubt anyone would question the BBC's free expression interests in sharing its broadcasting with Americans (or Chinese or Iranians), or Americans' first amendment interest in choosing to access that programming, even though the BBC's editorial line isn't completely free of political influence from the British government.

I thought their statement was that they help Americans exercise their first amendment rights in communicating with one another, which seems obviously true. Much like HN is doing right now, for example!

[walthamstow]

Wouldn't that position would also invalidate section 230 protections?