Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Harbinger01173430 ,

Good, that'll decrease the amount of stupidity in the platform for the international audiences to enjoy

xia ,

This seems to be a pattern. Govts flex over tech companies, techs blackout a country instead of complying, repeat.

Harbinger01173430 ,

That happens when the government doesn't create the technology LIKE IN COUNTLESS CIVILIZATION SIMULATORS

elrik ,

Good. Please proceed as quickly as possible.

A_Random_Idiot ,
@A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world avatar

They'd rather shut it down cause they dont want to sell it and let an American company see how they use and abuse it to gather information and manipulate behaviors.

Gabu ,

LMAO, apt name. You do know that facebook, a known disinformation company, is american, right?

A_Random_Idiot ,
@A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, and they should be shut down too. though the difference is facebook is a private entity and tiktok is a tool owned and operated by the chinese government.

You're point?

Gabu ,

No, I'm not a point. Oh, you mean your point. Funny how you don't know that, as an American.

Hootz , (edited )

Generally these days someone who uses grammer and spelling as an attack kinda automatically looses the argument.

Edit: yes I am actually 3 preschoolers in a trench coat.

A_Random_Idiot ,
@A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world avatar

Especially in the era of autobutcher that thinks you should have typed something different and decides to change it a third of a second before you hit enter.

I'm just gonna leave the false-correction up now, though. Who the fuck cares. Certainly no one with anything actually valuable to contribute.

Muscar ,

You're doing well with living up to your username.

A_Random_Idiot ,
@A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world avatar

This why I love my username. Cause anyone that has a proper, well thought out retort will provide their proper, well thought out retort.

Jackasses that want to pretend they are still on reddit and have nothing to contribute, however, just love to throw the "hurr hurrr ur usarname r dum cuz u r dum lol me supar smartest" type comments and out themselves.

EurekaStockade ,

I don't recall the previous commenter mentioning anything about Facebook. Making a comment that is anti something doesn't automatically mean they're pro something else.

Step 1: Feel like getting into a comment section argument

Step 2: Put words in the other guy's mouth and argue against those

Step 3: Make yourself look like a bit of a tool

Is this the best use of your time?

Duamerthrax ,

Burn them all.

emergencyfood ,

Maybe they are willing to sell and are just saying this to drive up the price.

Or maybe they don't want a competitor to have access to their secret algorithm, and threaten them globally. This way they lose only one market.

Another possibility is that they will teach users how to use a VPN, and are confident that enough of their users will do it.

Or maybe they think saying they're willing to shut down will make some of their users lobby against this bill / organise protests / call their representatives. (This probably won't work.)

Companies are ultimately motivated by money. They will do whatever underhanded trick they can think up to get it.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

As if an American company wouldn't just pick up where they left off... have you seen Meta? The system needs regulation, not a change in ownership to preferred snoopers.

nexguy ,
@nexguy@lemmy.world avatar

They are free to sell to non American companies just fine as long as the new company is not ultimately controlled by the Chinese government.

rageagainstmachines ,

Don't threaten us with a good time!

ExfilBravo ,

Bye Felicia

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.

But if TikTok is a Chinese psyop, they'll just use any of the many legal tricks we allow to change the "owner" while China still retains control. Companies do this all the time, look at shell companies and such. It's super easy for China to mask the true owner if they decide to.

This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.

lud ,

I take no stance on the psyop thing but is always selling the best way to seek profits. I say no. Unless they can sell and somehow force the buyer to operate exclusively in the USA. If not then there is still the rest of the world to profit from and selling their entire USA branch would suddenly create a new huge competitor.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.

If the sale is forced, the value of the property will be depressed. Why would they take pennies on the dollar to liquidate IP rather than fight it out in court and try to get the provision overturned?

This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.

The law is not specific to TikTok. It is any company owned by a subsidiary of an "enemy" state, of which China is listed as such.

And selling the company to a non-Chinese holding company wouldn't work, because the dispute is over Chinese IP law affecting how ByteDance does business. Move the company overseas and it would no longer be covered by the IP provisions (something the Chinese investors don't want, because they benefit from the IP provisions).

piskertariot ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Why would the forced sale of a product have an impact on the value?

    I have a shelf full of cupcakes. They each cost me $1 to make. I would like to generate a 20% profit, so I sell them for $1.20/ea.

    Then the government passes the "UnderpantsWeevil Can't Sell Cupcakes In the US Act of 2024", effective in one minute. A financial tycoon from American Cupcake Corp comes by my shop and says "I'll pay you $.10 for those cupcakes, which will be worthless to you in the next 59 seconds." He intended to buy them from me and sell them at his store, across the street, for $1.30/ea.

    He's not under any time constraint, but I am. So if I can't move the balance of my cupcakes in a minute, they become worthless to me.

    Logically, I should sell any cupcakes I can't move off the shelf in a minute to American Cupcake Corp, even at this depressed asking price.

    If anything, the fact that it’s being forced to “sell” should make the existing social media companies froth at the mouth.

    Why would any social media company bid the real value of the property when the real value falls to zero in nine months?

    And - let us assume, hypothetically, that these American tech companies have a history of operating as a cartel - why would they not coordinate their bids to guarantee the smallest possible auction price?

    TheLowestStone ,
    @TheLowestStone@lemmy.world avatar

    He's not under any time constraint

    Remind me not to eat at your house.

    Zink ,

    Why would any social media company bid the real value of the property when the real value falls to zero in nine months?

    I could see Google buying the brand even without the secret algorithm, and now the next app update will start showing YouTube Shorts. Or maybe they would just start showing “tiktoks” in the YouTube app, with no mention of yt shorts.

    Meta seems like a possible choice too. Hell, maybe Elon Musk will waste billions of dollars ruining it and throwing away an extremely popular brand.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    I could see Google buying the brand even without the secret algorithm

    Not at the company's pre-law market cap

    Car ,

    I’m not an economist but that makes sense to me.

    What about a modified scenario:

    A small island has three cupcake makers operating out of their homes: Meta, Alphabet, and Bytedance. Each has captured a section of the island’s market with cupcakes and at this point, there’s no real opportunity for growth. Meta can’t convince Bytedance’s customers to switch because they prefer other flavors. Meta would need to purchase one of the other cupcake companies in order to expand.

    None of the cupcake makers are interested in selling their companies. They consider themselves elite and their successes feed into the CEO and shareholder perceptions of value and success.

    Now, we consider that one of the cupcake companies is funded by a rich uncle from a different country. The island’s elders decide that the uncle’s influence is too great and orders Bytedance to sell its cupcake company or leave the island.

    We’ve established earlier that people who like Bytedance cupcakes don’t necessarily want to eat Meta or Alphabet cupcakes, so if they leave the market, those customers may be gone for good. They may have a change of heart and decide that cupcakes of any flavor are fine, but they may also be angry that the government forced their favorite place out of business. In any case, Meta and Alphabet cannot rely capturing this segment of the market to grow.

    Faced with the dilemma of possibly gaining customers organically or definitely gaining customers by purchasing their preferred product brand, I’d argue that the remaining companies may jump on the opportunity to purchase Bytedance before they are forced out. None of the cupcake companies were up for sale in a traditional sense before, so this was never a realistic path to achieve growth.

    ME5SENGER_24 ,

    Does selling from one hand to the other actually matter when it comes to value? If I own a company and sell it to myself via a shell corporation have I actually lost anything, except a tax write off?

    Dearth ,

    Tiktok is used globally. Only American politicians seem concerned about the platform why would bytedance sell it when they can just continue operating in 180 other countries around the world?

    RagingRobot ,

    It's not available in China though interestingly

    Saprophyte ,
    @Saprophyte@lemmy.world avatar

    True story, Tiktok has never been available in mainland China.

    https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-bytedance-ban-china-india-376f32d78861e14e65ec4bc78e808a0d

    hr_ ,

    In mainland China it's called Douyin, exactly the same app, same company, not the same content of course. It's separate because Beijing wants a tighter control on social media in mainland China.

    seth ,

    194

    Adderbox76 ,

    Actually many governments are concerned about it. But only the US (so far) had pulled the nuclear option.

    I feel like they're threatening a shutdown in the hopes of getting them to reverse their decision because if they just quietly go along with it, other countries will likely quickly follow suit in short order.

    The reality is that the lifespan of "most popular social media app" is incredibly short. In the space of a few short years, we've gone from MySpace to Facebook to twitter to vine to Snapchat and now to tiktok.

    TikTok will soon enough be replaced by "the next cool thing" and BD knows that if they sell in the US, that new entity will quickly replace them globally because the US effectively IS the influencer market.

    Viewers go where the content is, and that's still overwhelmingly American (for better or worse). There is no successful social media app without including the US and BD knows it.

    ahriboy ,
    @ahriboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Then Weibo and WeChat will geoblock US in response to TikTok ban.

    Omniraptor ,

    So was google an American psyop for pulling out of China instead of submitting to censorship?

    Omgboom ,

    Tombstone-Well.Bye.gif

    rusticus ,

    Bytedance announces to software developers: “Start your engines!”

    Adanisi , (edited )
    @Adanisi@lemmy.zip avatar

    I dislike TikTok but should you really be banning platforms you don't like?

    Sanction them if they misbehave, yes. Prevent most of the population from communicating using it? Absolutely not.

    Americans have weird priorities when it comes to freedom. The mental gymnastics I've been seeing trying to justify a ban of a platform to a massive population of people is nuts.

    No, it isn't "actually upholding" freedom of speech to ban TikTok.

    Specal ,

    but chyna bad duh

    rusticus ,

    lol you think “freedom of speech” includes foreign adversary right to harvest American citizen data?

    NeatPinecone ,

    Exactly. I only want my data to be harvested by the NSA. It feels more patriotic.

    Toribor ,
    @Toribor@corndog.social avatar

    Congress believes it's a national security threat which is probably true but they haven't bothered explaining this to their constituents at all. Ideally they'd pass comprehensive privacy protection laws to setup standards that both domestic and foreign companies would be subject to. Then companies either adjust their behaviors and meet a certain level of transparency or they would be prosecuted under the law.

    But no... We get this instead: a confusing and obviously targeted ultimatum with Congress telling everyone 'trust me bro this is the only way'.

    admin ,
    @admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

    deally they'd pass comprehensive privacy protection laws to setup standards that both domestic and foreign companies would be subject to.

    No, no, no. That would mean dismantling PRISM and the FISA. Gathering data on citizens is only bad when China does it.

    asdfasdfasdf ,

    I mean, to be fair, both are extremely bad and should be stopped, but a hostile foreign country gathering data and pushing propaganda on your citizens IS worse than you or non-hostile foreign countries doing it.

    a_wild_mimic_appears ,

    I would argue that gathering data about your own citizens is actively worse than china doing it; an average US citizen has a lot more to lose if the 3-letter-agencies or the police use it against them, because those are who you would have to deal with in person.

    asdfasdfasdf ,

    Valid point. I think the issue is that we know there is no good reason for China to have that data, and we know that they are hostile, so it's an easy decision.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    should you really be banning platforms you don’t like?

    Yes, but only if that platform is Twitter

    bighatchester ,

    I don't think most Americans want tiktok banned . Unfortunately the US government just does what ever they want and right now there is too much pro Palestine information on tiktok .

    BananaTrifleViolin ,

    Makes sense from a business point of view. Why sell to create a new competitor with the same technology and an impregnable market base in the USA?

    Better to force US competition to start from scratch.

    OldWoodFrame ,

    For money. Whoever buys it has to pay you for it. Shutting down just means leaving a gaping hole in American social media that some other company will fill and you'll be in the same position but with less money.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Yeah I agree, there really is no incentive for a for-profit company to choose shutting down over selling. Unless they never cared about profit and had ulterior motives from the very beginning.

    festus ,

    I mean the sale agreement could require the buyer to never expand outside the US.

    randao ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    viking ,
    @viking@infosec.pub avatar

    Not really, they would still be operating the same business in every other part of the world, except for the US. So you'd then have US Tiktok competing with World Tiktok. They can't be forced to sell the global operations due to a mandate from some American court, no matter how much they think to be the world police.

    randao ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    viking ,
    @viking@infosec.pub avatar

    US tiktok won’t operate outside USA.

    Says who?

    randao ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    viking ,
    @viking@infosec.pub avatar

    The sales agreement that you have read?

    aniki ,

    The law that they are trying to pass... they are not wrong either.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    H.R.815 Sections H and I have already passed, and there is no "sales agreement" because TikTok hasn't officially negotiated with any potential buyers. The US Government as a whole doesn't want or need TikTok, they just don't want China using it as a weapon.

    Buttons , (edited )
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    Why don't they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?

    TikTok would remain exactly the same, with the exact same algorithms, but it would then be the free speech of a US Citizen so everyone would be happy. Maybe TikTok couldn't send the data directly to China anymore, but they could certainly sell personal data on the shadowy data markets, just like every other US owned tech company does, and if that data happens to find its way to China then 🤷 .

    Shell companies hide the true owner of companies all the time. Why can't TikTok do the same?

    The problem is they targeted TikTok specifically in the law and it will be easy to circumvent. "TikTok is banned, but check out this totally new website called TokTik with the exact same content but owned by a US Citizen".

    This is why they should have created regulations that apply to all companies. Because making regulations that depend on who owns the company will only cause TikTok to change the technicality of who owns the company. They can do so through all kinds of legal tricks without ever actually giving up control.

    lud ,

    Why don't they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?

    Who?
    What USA citizen is prepared to buy something for the privilege of fighting the USA government with would obviously get mad and probably block the sale if byte Dance TikTok is still involved.

    I don't really follow USA politics but didn't this law pass by quite large margins? They could obviously ban toktik.

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    They can't actually ban TikTok by name, it's unconstitutional to make laws targeted at individuals.

    The current law actually says "no company can operate in the US with over 20% owned by China, Iran, N. Korea, or Russia", or something like that.

    There's a lot of people in the US and at least of few of them would be willing to run TikTok the same way, same algorithms, same content, and sell the users data on shadowy data markets (which China can surely get their hands on), etc. I'm repeating myself now.

    Again, my point is there are a lot of people in the US and surely some of them can form a company willing to do what China wants, and isn't that their right by our laws and morals of free speech? I know if things get heated enough laws and morals will be ignored (see Japanese internment camps).

    And my even broader point is that this move against TikTok has ulterior motives. We should have created regulations that apply to all companies instead of targeting TikTok specifically. Even though we didn't technically target TikTok specifically, we effectively did.

    lud ,

    If you help TikTok in that way you would absolutely get on the government's hit list (literal or not).

    It would probably be quite easy to just make a new law or revision that stops the theoretical loophole.

    InternetUser2012 ,

    Our House of Representatives and Senate are more than 20% owned by Russia.

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    They could even own a President. Unheard of! /s

    yildolw ,

    Why don’t they just sell TikTok to a US Citizen who happens to believe TikTok should remain the same?

    They already did that. TikTok is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with headquarters in Los Angeles. The bill of attainder is post-that

    FiniteBanjo ,

    This is part of Section H of H.R.815 that was signed into law:

    (A) any of—

(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

(ii) TikTok;

(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or

(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or

(B) a covered company that—

(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and

(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—

(I) a public notice proposing such determination; and

(II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.

(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.

    So, no, they don't just get to change their name. They don't get to change everything and still send data overseas to China. They have to cut ties with the CCP or else they cannot escape this.

    Serinus ,

    For the record, they're not currently sending data to China. Though they'd probably only have to gently twist one or two arms and need about 12 hours to do so.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    The company openly stores the data in China. Ex-employee Yintao “Roger” Yu, who was head of Engineering for all of ByteDance's US Operations in 2017-2018, claims that the CCP had full immediate access to all collected data.

    Buttons , (edited )
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    I've also heard the data is physically stored and hosted by Oracle. So maybe China just copies it? The primary copy is in the US currently. Which doesn't really mean much.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Meta's data ended up in China too. But Congress isn't targeting them.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    When Facebook was investigated following the 2016 election for selling Data that inevitably ended up in Russia, the DOJ reccomended their case to the FTC who in 2019 fined them 5 BILLION USD. This isn't even the only time they've been fined or investigated, either, they've got ongoing lawsuits from the states and federal governments.

    And now, the FTC no longer has to wait for a DOJ investigation because H.R.815 also included Section I that enshrines their ability to fine the companies who sell data to adversarial countries including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.

    But sure, "tHeY'RE NoT TaRGetTiNG faCeBOoK." I can't tell if you're supremely uninformed or a CCP shill, but to be very frank I don't have patience for you in either circumstance.

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    You've made the most substantive comments in this post. Especially quoting the law and this information about Facebook.

    For context, Facebook's revenue in 2019 was 70 billions dollars. So a 5 billion dollar fine isn't nothing. Everyone can judge these bans and fines for themselves and judge whether there's a double standard though.

    You seem upset because I said TikTok stores their data in Oracle, but that's what they said in 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/17/tech/tiktok-user-data-oracle/index.html But, as you say, it appears in 2018 they were storing their data in China, and presumably that continued up until mid-2022.

    I'm not a shill, but I am a cynic who believes the government is acting on behalf of their corporate friends (US media companies) rather than on general principles. I have no love for China. I wanted regulation that applied equally to all US companies. If you don't want to talk to me, fine, I'll discuss my opinion with others; even so, you've shared a lot of important and concrete information here, so thanks again.

    Serinus ,

    That's the guy who's worked there for six months and exaggerated his role there, right?

    I'm in favor of the bill, but I want the information we have to be accurate.

    Buttons , (edited )
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    I see. You're right about the text of the law. Thanks for taking the time to post that.

    I would say it violates the 1st Amendment then. US Citizens have a right to say what they want, which includes saying what China wants if that is what the person wants.

    The courts will have to decide.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    YouTube/IG are hardly starting from scratch.

    But they don't have the international reach of TikTok.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    IG is owned by FaceBook which actually has about double the userbase of TikTok if you don't count DouYin's 700 Million. I kind of hope that they also fuck up and trigger Section I if not full blown Section H of the bill.

    Steve ,

    Do it.

    nao ,

    EU next please

    Geth ,

    Don't use it if you don't like it, but don't give this bullshit Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda control of something just because you don't like it.

    It's just as bad or good as any other algorithm based content app like Facebook or Instagram. If we have a problem with privacy for example then go after that like with gdpr.

    dko1905 ,
    @dko1905@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I don't think it's primarily about the algorithm or "Public Enlightenment and Propaganda" but instead about data and company ownership.
    Currently the US and EU are far closer allies with each other than with china. Services that are owned/controlled by their countries are therefore prioritized, and competing services from non-ally countries are way more scrutinized.

    ultratiem ,
    @ultratiem@lemmy.ca avatar

    I think you have it backwards, in that it’s the US that’s trying to stop all the Chinese propaganda coming from that app.

    And if TT pull out of the US, it’s pretty telling that their core drive for that thing wasn’t money.

    Eyck_of_denesle ,

    Why would a tech company sell their product to another competitor in such a big landscape like US? It's quite very much because of money.

    _tezz ,

    Well for one, because if they don't then they will get precisely 0 money. If it is indeed about the money then we would absolutely expect them to sell no? Otherwise.... There's no money

    Eyck_of_denesle ,

    0 money from us market. They still have a big market outside US. Why would they sabotage it by giving an advantage to a competitor. No money is better than negative money.

    _tezz ,

    While they would no longer be competing in the US market, any 'competitor' would have to do the work of gaining billions of customers in other countries, that are already entrenched into Tik Tok user space. I think that worry is kinda moot if you're TT leadership.

    yildolw ,

    If France passes a law requiring Google to sell Google France to a French company, would Google pulling out instead of selling mean their core drive in France wasn't money?

    ultratiem ,
    @ultratiem@lemmy.ca avatar

    Google is an American company. Apples and Oranges.

    wewbull ,

    We already sanction TV stations because of their propaganda content e.g. Russia Today. I see this as no different.

    lud ,

    Then the EU would need some evidence of propaganda.

    ObsidianZed ,

    I'm curious, is there an actual plan to ban TikTok? How do they think they can accomplish that? And just how easy will it be to circumvent the ban?

    sugar_in_your_tea , (edited )

    Having read through the bill, here's how it works:

    1. TikTok/ByteDance is mentioned specifically in the bill, so they have 270 days (iirc) to divest of "adversary country" influence (meaning China, Iran, Russia, N. Korea), meaning they'd have to be sold to a company based in a non-adversary country
    2. assuming they don't comply with 1, any app store or ISP *hosting provider* would be fined if they continue to preserve access to the app
    3. users can still use the app, but they have have network access blocked while in the US - so you'd have to use a VPN to use the app

    So to circumvent it, basically use a VPN to use the app, and for updates, you'd probably need to side-load on Android or something similar. I don't know how Apple's store works well enough to know what options users have to install and update the app after the ban.

    That said, there is no provision for making it illegal to use the app, the onus is entirely on companies facilitating access to the app.

    Edit: I was wrong about the ISP. After a reread, it's talking about server hosting. So a server cannot be hosted in the US, nor can a server in the US distribute copies of the app, or host source code for the app.

    mox , (edited )

    "Controlled by a foreign adversary" and "foreign adversary country" are the key phrases. The definitions are here.

    It refers to United States Code title 10 section 4872(d)(2), which says:

    Covered nation .— The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    I think those phrases are important when discussing any potential "slippery slope" aspects of this bill. It's about companies/applications from specific adversary nations. It's not about just any service that annoys a US politician. The bar here is much higher, and the scope is narrow. While it does identify ByteDance and TikTok by name, it will also apply to other companies from those nations, if they are determined to present a threat to US national security.

    I haven't read the entire bill, so please don't take this as advice, but in principle, I think it seems like a sensible measure. A major communication platform like TikTok makes a very effective propaganda and misinformation tool. Exactly the sort of thing that an adversary nation would use to sway political discourse, influence elections, even undermine a democracy.

    Of course, any law can be abused, so paying attention to how this one is applied and enforced will be important, just as with any other.

    sugar_in_your_tea ,

    While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.

    The President can't just name any country an "adversary country," but it's not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.

    However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:

    1. Publicly notify Congress of the intent to classify them as an adversary company (assuming they meet the rest of the rules) at least 30 days prior to any further action
    2. Notify the public of the change

    Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).

    So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I'm more worried about the precedent it's setting. We generally don't ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.

    Uranium3006 ,
    @Uranium3006@kbin.social avatar

    This is a good oppertunity to teach young people about tech

    bamboo ,

    Does is specify ISP blocking directly in the bill?? It was my understanding that it would just prevent US based app stores (Apple, Google) from distributing the app in their stores.

    I'm not even sure how ISP blocking would work, unless it was to just blackhole DNS queries to tiktok.com. Having attempted to block DNS lookups for TikTok on my own home router via PiHole, I can say that the app either hard codes IP addresses, or resolves DNS over HTTPS independently of the system DNS settings, so I doubt a DNS based ISP block would be feasible.

    sugar_in_your_tea ,

    Here's the bill (Division H is the relevant part).

    I misread "internet hosting service" in the initial section as "Internet service," so I'm guessing it doesn't obligate ISPs to block TikTok or any other service.

    It does block server hosts from allowing distribution of blocked apps though. So no local mirrors of the app.

    bamboo ,

    Right they define internet hosting service as:

    (5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.

    So this would prevent a US organization like AWS, Oracle, etc from hosting the TikTok user data as long as TikTok is owned or a subsidiary of ByteDance or another "foreign adversary".

    Elsewhere in the text, they exclude "service providers" from restrictions, so it seems like ISPs are not going to block requests to TikTok.

    sugar_in_your_tea ,

    Yup, that's my read too after a review.

    I honestly kinda skimmed that part initially because I was more interested in how it could impact other apps. I don't particularly care about TikTok, I just wanted to know what other apps could be targeted and what the process for that looks like.

    Toribor ,
    @Toribor@corndog.social avatar

    This is about banning their ability to do business in America, not just trying to ban access to their content on the Internet itself.

    xnx ,
    @xnx@slrpnk.net avatar

    The amount of people happy about their government deciding to ban websites and apps is terrifying. They dont give a fuck about your privacy they’re just mad they dont control the algorithm. Now they can have people move to instagram reels where its easier to serve the propaganda the oligarchs prefer

    natural_motions ,

    TikTok isn't just some random, normal app. It's spyware and a tool for CCP propaganda.

    May as well ask why the government would ban Russian anti-virus software.

    xnx ,
    @xnx@slrpnk.net avatar

    And facebook isnt? Facebook did experiments on teens to see if theyre easier to manipulate when theyre depressed. They took money to apread fake news to manipulate voters for the presidential election. Yall are so blinded by the china boogeyman its absurd

    natural_motions ,

    Is Facebook owned by the government?

    Does anyone even use FB anymore besides boomers?

    No. The totalitarian technofascist state of China is not the same as the US, nor are their state owned apps comparable to those of privately owned one regardless of how much of a sociopath Zuckerberg is.

    xnx ,
    @xnx@slrpnk.net avatar

    If tiktok can be considered owned by the Chinese gov so can facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM theres tons of programs secret and public that shows american tech companies have to obey to the US government demands.

    Boomers vote more than anyone else

    Facebook owns all the biggest apps, instagram whatsapp, and now threads is getting bigger than twitter. Great lets kill competition because scary china boogeyman all put all the power in the hands of mark zuckerberg, the conservatives that manipulate the platform and pay to manipulate the people on it.

    Album ,
    @Album@lemmy.ca avatar

    If tiktok can be considered owned by the Chinese gov so can facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM theres tons of programs secret and public that shows american tech companies have to obey to the US government demands.

    "In 2014, ByteDance established an internal Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee.[47] The company's vice president, Zhang Fuping, serves as the company's CCP Committee Secretary.[48][49]"

    This is not a defense of FB or american companies, but rather an indictment of tiktok and an acknowledgement that the degree of CCP involvement in tiktok is not the same as neolib involvement in FB.

    natural_motions ,

    No. The government does not own Facebook. You're free to make that baseless assertion, but there's nothing to really say about it other than it's false on its face and makes you appear unserious.

    We're not talking conspiracy theories, China is not a normal country, it's literally a totalitarian state in which the government has complete control. Not like hyperbolic "Oh, the US is totalitarian." but actually totalitarian in the legal and material sense.

    yamanii ,
    @yamanii@lemmy.world avatar

    So why did the PRISM project exists? If there is freedom to deny the government access why did american companies all get in bed with it? This is also not a conspiracy since Snowden will be jailed if he steps foot in american soil.

    xnx ,
    @xnx@slrpnk.net avatar

    PRISM and countless programs arent conspiracies they are facts. The US isnt totalitarian to their citizens but they are to the millions of people who’s countries theyve placed fascists into power to kill and imprison their citizens

    cybersin ,

    Does anyone even use FB anymore besides boomers?

    Ok, so boomers are not actually people, facebook's 3 billion active users don't exist, and 250 million of those fake people are certainly not from the fake US.

    But TikTok...

    Amazing how we are talking of Chinese surveillance while the US just renewed another one of its surveillance bills.

    So much "I am immune to, and can spot all propaganda" in this thread.

    natural_motions , (edited )

    It's amazing that you must work under the assumption that I'm defending facebook in order for your rambling to have any kind of structure.

    No one is defending facebook or FISA or anything else shitty the US has done. I said that claiming Facebook is owned by the government or that the US is totalitarian like the CCP is false and now you guys just can't accept that fact.

    God I thought we left this dishonest tankie shit behind on Reddit. But nope, here's the brigade of fanatics up to their old rhetorical bullshit.

    aniki ,

    mic_drop

    Serinus ,

    His point would be legit and fine if he didn't tack on the "only I am right and you are wrong" part.

    It's true that we should be passing something like GDPR that ensures privacy in all apps, and not just TikTok.

    But I'm certainly in favor of going after TikTok regardless. I hope Facebook and Google and Reddit and Apple are next on the list.

    Dran_Arcana ,

    It is possible to both be anti-chinese government and also want comprehensive privacy laws in the US. Like, I absolutely buy that the Chinese government has access to tiktok data. I, however, don't think forcing a sale is the right way to deal with any of this. Comprehensive privacy and data collection laws would go much farther towards making it so it doesn't really matter who owns what.

    Serinus ,

    👀

    Dran_Arcana ,

    Small fediverse lol

    Maggoty ,

    For spyware the cyber security community seems pretty meh about it...

    Shameless ,

    You wanna talk Chinese spyware, why are they not outright banning Temu? That's a much better documented case of actually being spyware.

    In terms of Tiktok being spyware, they are tracking users in much the same ways that every other big social media company is. Should other nations be worried about Facebook sharing that data with the US govt to produce psyops campaigns against foreign nations?

    I'm against any country blocking access to things in the name of "national security" and providing little to no evidence on it. Its been done too many times to trojan horse in other malicious activities that governments want to do.

    nexguy ,
    @nexguy@lemmy.world avatar

    The u.s. still wouldn't control the algorithm even if bytedance sold because they are not required to sell to a u.s. company. As long as the new company isn't controlled by the ccp(or probably also russ, n Korea, iran) the u.s. doesn't care who owns it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •