I don’t really use TikTok but I really hope this gets tossed by the courts. I don’t care if ByteDance is owned by cthulus and draculas, it’s a terrible precedent to have the government ban a media company. If we don’t like China having access to data, ban apps from collecting it in the first place. Require algorithm audits. There are so many better ways to handle this than a banning TikTok.
Biden expected to sign the TikTok ban on Wed.
Submitted 6 months ago by Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-congress-bill-1c48466df82f3684bd6eb21e61ebcb8d
Comments
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 months ago
danc4498@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Everybody talks about Facebook like they’re owned by the American government. They’re not. I’m sure the US government gets massive amounts of data from them, but they can’t control Facebook in the way China can control Tik Tok. And much of their surveillance is public with warrants whereas China does not need to follow any of that.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 6 months ago
it’s a terrible precedent to have the government ban a media company
Good thing TikTok’s not actually being banned then isn’t it? It’s just being forcibly sold, which is quite different.
HidingCat@kbin.social 6 months ago
Don't forget, control the sale of data too. Audits etc to make sure they comply with privacy safeguards, and so on.
This is just pandering as well as, I suspect, to give a corporate donor a profit-making business.
Meron35@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The precedent was already set back in 2020 when the US government forced Kunlun to sell Grindr
johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I know that I heard (on the 538 podcast) that before voting on this, congress was given a security briefing about it, and after that there was wide bipartisan support for the ban (and we all know how rare bipartisan support is these days). It sounds like the security briefing was pretty compelling. If it’s not just theoretical that Chinese gocernment could leverage tiktok to spy on Americans and influence them, and there’s evidence that they are already doing it, I think it makes the case for the ban much stronger. But the information has not been made public.
I’ll also note that they set the ban to not go into effect until after the election.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Young people get a lot of their news and information from TikTok. The US government doesn’t have their hands in TikTok like they do domestic social media platforms.
That’s it. That’s the ban.
Toribor@corndog.social 6 months ago
This seems to be the case, but congress is doing an awful job of communicating the danger to the public. There will likely be a lot of people angry at Biden when he signs this if there is no effort to justify the targeted action.
Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
I feel like it isn’t congress’s job to do that. They don’t have to share or repeat information that they are not experts on to the public. They can share their thought process and rationale for supporting legislation, but we shouldn’t expect them to be perceived as technical experts. I bet that fewer than 10 congressional representatives can look at a portion of code and make an educated statement on what’s going on.
It’s the job of the organization(s) that prepare the security briefing, and we’ve already been hearing this kind of thing in the cybersecurity field for years. Those in the know, know. Those not, tend to not believe it. Warnings about the potential for data harvesting and information operations via platforms like (and specifically) Tik Tok aren’t new.
Dark_Arc@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m sure it’s just even more detail about the scope of that influence campaign (and possibly an extrapolation of effectiveness on public opinion).
The major thing is manipulation of the public’s information pipeline by a hostile foreign power. There are already existing laws about foreign owned media (as cited by the New York Times this morning www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/…/677806/).
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
If there is evidence then let’s hear it in court. We are not an Autocracy.
johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Uhh, yeah, we’re a representative democracy. This passed through both houses of congress and is on its way to be signed by the president. You know, the completely normal legislative process.
Buttons@programming.dev 6 months ago
Bipartisan support is only rare when it comes to things like giving healthcare to the poor.
johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That hasn’t been true at all post-2016.
hark@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Being the guy who signed the bill that threatens the existence of a platform that is super popular with young people whose vote he desperately needs during an election year. Masterful gambit, sir!
Asafum@feddit.nl 6 months ago
Literally my first thought… Way to go Biden, nothing like getting hundreds of thousands of “influencers” mad at you right at an important election…
But who are we kidding, I can guarantee that maybe 5% of Congress even understood what they were doing.
johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There’s a reason why the bill doesn’t go into effect until after the election.
Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Data harvesting is half of the problem. I have a feeling that congress could give two shits about the data harvesting as it’s almost literally everywhere in modern society and not in the interests of donors or the nationality security apparatus to remove.
The other half is the platform and its potential (hypothetical and actual) for use in information operations. TikTok has direct access to something like 160 million American devices. That rivals other social media giants like Meta who have some government liaisons and relationships embedded in their security teams. ByteDance to my knowledge does not have these relationships. This problem could just as easily apply to any other foreign platform if any were large enough to pose threats of this scale.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 months ago
My guess is they’re more concerned about propaganda. They’re concerned about it being Fox News, but for the CCP.
Starts off innocent enough, then slowly starts pushing disinformation that’s in service of a political entity.
filister@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You mean exactly like Facebook, right, because there are a lot of parallels but I never heard American politicians want to ban Facebook.
Let’s not fool ourselves!
Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Propaganda is effective. It’s at times silly, blatant, jingoistic, and offensive, but it has historically worked to influence public opinions.
I think you’re right, but saying the quiet part out loud. People don’t like to think they’re susceptible to scams and propaganda because they’re not that dumb or gullible. People still click on phishing emails…
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Sure, you gotta limit the propaganda to American companies…
I’m no fan of TikTok and I think it’s actively harmful for a whole host of reasons, but freedom of speech is Constitutionally protected, and I can see an argument that “algorithms” should be included in that protection. That’s probably why this doesn’t target the “algorithms” TikTok uses, but instead targets the nation of origin.
The propaganda issue is not resolved by this legislation, it merely attacks one potential source and gives the President tools to address other similar sources w/o passing new legislation. It’s probably fine (and way better than previous, related proposals), but it doesn’t do much to solve propaganda.
I’d much rather see more focus on transparency, privacy, and consent, instead of just banning stuff because it seems dangerous.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Yes, this is almost certainly it. They used the app to send a notification to users to contact their representatives about this bill. They are obviously willing to use it for political means, and their users are willing to listen. What else might they use that power to do?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll repost here for discussion:
Ew. I looked through the bill, and here are some parts I have issues with:
Main text
> PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON - TROLLED APPLICATIONS .—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following: > > (A) Providing services to distribute, main- tain, or update such foreign adversary con- trolled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application. > > (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
So basically, the US can block any form of software (not just social media) distributed by an adversary county for pretty much reason, and it can block any company providing access to anything from an adversary.
Definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary"
> (g) DEFINITIONS .—In this section:6 (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY .— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is– > > (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country; > > (B) an entity with respect to which a for- eign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indi- rectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or > > © a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
The adversary countries are (defined in a separate US code):
- N. Korea
- China
- Russia
- Iran
So if you live in any of these or work for a company based in any of these, you’re subject to the law.
foreign adversary company definition
> (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI - CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— > > (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, di- rectly 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—
It specifically calls out TikTok and ByteDance, but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat.
So here are my issues:
- I, as a US citizen, can’t choose to distribute software produced by an adversary as noted officially by the US government - this is a limitation on my first amendment protections, and I think this applies to FOSS if the original author is from one of those countries
- the barrier to what counts is relatively low - just living in an adversary country or working for a company based on an adversary country seems to don’t
- barrier to a “covered company” is relatively low and probably easy to manipulate - basically needs 1M active users (not even US users), which the CIA could totally generate if needed
So I think the bill is way too broad (lots of "or"s), and I’m worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors. It’s not as bad as I feared, but I still think it’s harmful.
Anyway, thoughts?
Asafum@feddit.nl 6 months ago
and I’m worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors.
I want to give the benefit of the doubt and say they are concerned about getting programs running all over the country that can somehow “backdoor” a major issue into our network, but I not only don’t know enough about how feasible that is, I also strongly believe it’s as you feared. It’s what we get the government to do all the time: fuck with other countries to “protect” our major corporations…
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Look at Snowdon"s revelations, they abused FISA courts to rubber stamp spying on US citizens. Why wouldn’t they do the same for lobbyists?
I get that TikTok sucks for all manner of reasons, but expanding the power of the executive branch isn’t the way to deal with it, especially this way. This is pretty similar to the “force authorization” crap where the President can just bomb whoever the want, provided they let Congress know afterward. But now it’s in the economy instead of just military…
So no, I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt, they’ve lost my trust every other time they’ve done something like this. The bill is bad and the precedent is sets is bad.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 months ago
its also them just avoiding writing a privacy bill, yet again.
Dlayknee@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Well c’mon, if they write a legit privacy bill it’s going to hurt their Stateside vectors. This way, they can tout “yay security!” whole funneling more traffic to Instabookapp where they can still access it.
Dark_Arc@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I think you should check out this article in The Atlantic, it goes into the history of the US government’s previous laws to protect against foreign propaganda and manipulation of the media. What you’ll find is this is more of an update (to catch up with the internet era) than a revamp of US domestic policy.
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/…/677806/
Also a key point I think you’re missing here:
but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat
The president can only do this for apps from the countries covered in the US code as Foreign Adversaries, which means the president can act quickly against threats, but this is a bad avenue for attacking competition in other friendly countries (e.g., shutting down Proton would require congress to pass a law that Switzerland is a foreign adversary – which would not be good for relations – AND a law specifically targeting Proton accompanying that or the president to then act against Proton).
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
What does the judicial review process look like? Because the bill only states (unless I missed it) that the President needs to give notice to Congress.
What it looks like is if China or Russia has a competitor to a US product (say, Yandex or Baidu), a US company (say, Google) could lobby the President to mark them as a threat and ban them from the US. The product doesn’t need to actually have the capacity to cause harm, it just needs to be from one of the adversary countries (currently China, Russia, N. Korea, and Iran).
It’s not as bad as it could be, but I think it misses a lot of the point here.
malloc@lemmy.world 6 months ago
My $1 bid is ready to submit to ByteDance once grandpa signs that bill.
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Get in line buddy, I’m entering this race with $1.01!!
residentmarchant@lemmy.world 6 months ago
How are you raising that kind of capital in this environment!? I can only dream of it!
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Good. Honestly, great! The EU should do the same. Fuck the CCP and their propaganda machine that brainwashes people all over the world!
sudo@programming.dev 6 months ago
At the moment brainwashing the youths to support Gaza, but not for long…
DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Free markets 📉🔥
Free speech 📉🔥
Children’s attention spans 📈✈️
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I don’t think that a hostile foreign nation has an inalienable right to collect the data of and interfere in the lives of American citizens, as a form of “free speech” lol
Damage@feddit.it 6 months ago
I guess the EU should ban Meta and Xitter…
DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 6 months ago
It was apparently fine for years and years though lol
Rakonat@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You’re arguing this is bad for free speech defending an app run by a country that doesn’t have free speech.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
So your argument is that we should be more like china
Cheems@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You’re exceptionally dumb if you think they won’t just go to another app that does the exact same thing.
BrownianMotion@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The kids don’t care, they will just use CoCo Fun (most are using both apps anyway).
The only difference is that with Coco Fun, its America spying on your kids.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
I don’t know why people think spying is the issue. It’s the potential control. For example, when this bill was proposed, TikTok sent a notification to users to contact their representatives. That’s not horribly harmful, but it does show a willingness to weaponize their user base (and their base’s willingness to listen).
If this bill wasn’t going to pass before, it sure as well would after that happened. You have to consider what else that could potentially be used for. Could they possibly use it to influence an election if a candidate was against their interests?
JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
If they ban one they should ban them all. Cambridge analytica used Facebook on behalf of LeaveEU and Trump.
Buttons@programming.dev 6 months ago
I get you, but asking people to participate in democracy is not “weaponization”, and I’m 100% okay with popular figures, even from other countries, telling people how to vote, because who doesn’t tell people how to vote these days?
normalexit@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There is a whole class of “influencers” that get paid to shill for everything from liquor to policy on every platform. Tiktok, a foreign company, owns the algorithm, so they can promote whatever they want.
This all seems sketchy, but then I recall citizens united and the fact that billions are spent directly purchasing influence in the actual government. They just don’t like some other entity putting their finger on the scale.
I’d much prefer systematic reform where money can’t buy influence and companies (US or otherwise) can’t spy on their users, yet that will never be on the table because of the money and power Facebook and others have.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Most companies will let customers know about legislation like that. It’s hardly nefarious.
skozzii@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
The “wrong government is stealing your data” bill.
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 6 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers that’s expected to face legal challenges and disrupt the lives of content creators who rely on the short-form video app for income.
For years, lawmakers and administration officials have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok.
Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who voted for the legislation, said he has concerns about TikTok, but he’s also worried the bill could have negative effects on free speech, doesn’t do enough to protect consumer privacy and could potentially be abused by a future administration to violate First Amendment rights.
“At the stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge,” Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, wrote in a memo sent to employees on Saturday and obtained by The Associated Press.
Since then, TikTok has been in negotiations about its future with the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a little-known government agency tasked with investigating corporate deals for national security concerns.
“As I started to reflect some months ago on the stresses of the last few years and the new generation of challenges that lie ahead, I decided that the time was right to pass the baton to a new leader,” Andersen wrote in an internal memo that was obtained by the AP.
The original article contains 1,165 words, the summary contains 266 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
meliodas_101@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s Thursday night here has he signed yet ?
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yup. It’s signed.
PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Welp, there goes any chance of getting the zoomers to vote this year
simplejack@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Biden wants to ban Chinese ownership of TikTok, but Trump’s been banning raw dog fuck’n.
Choice isn’t even close.
meliodas_101@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Who is gonna buy it though?
Dlayknee@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I read a while back that Bobby Kotick was trying to drum up investors for it.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
No one. China already said it won’t let Bytedance sell the algorithm or code. So even if someone buys the name we’ll just get YouTube shorts under a different name.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 months ago
US Congress will grant the government any power except enforcing privacy rights.
CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
Sell to who is what I’m wondering. I would be surprised if whoever wants to acquire TikTok is not lobbying hard for this.
cumskin_genocide@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Tiktok is literally brainwashing people into supporting Palestine and brainrot liberal policies. I’m glad it’s finally being banned
Nobody@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Are there whataboutism arguments? Yes, many.
Has Chinese intelligence lost access to a treasure trove of US data? Yes.
Are US kids’ already dwindling attention spans going to be saved from exposure to the TikTok algorithm? Yes.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 6 months ago
Actually, you’re right.
If we consider this normal, it would totally be acceptable for Europe to demand a ban or sale of American
spying and propaganda toolssocial media and streaming platforms. Either way, it would reduce the harm they could do - and in the case of a sale, they’d actually have to adhere to consumer friendly laws.Kiosade@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
They probably should. FB and all those other apps suck just as much.
TheBat@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Fucken do it.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I mean, they really should. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter… These are all trash.
Sl00k@programming.dev 6 months ago
You’re pinning the blame on tiktok when this also applies to YouTube (shorts and not), Instagram (Reels), Twitter. If we wanted an actual solution here we would implement actual children screen time laws, ironically similar to the under 18 gaming laws that have been implemented in China.
Tiktok is the only platform I’ve seen legitimate progressive forward on various issues and discussions centering on what that means and takes, in a way that actually fosters a great democratic progressive movement in the US.
From all I’ve read on this issue, not a single person has provided me with any insight into what or who this benefits that does not also apply to every other social media other than an entirely fabricated myth that they’re controlling the algorithms to spread anti US sentiment. Anti-US sentiment definitely exists, but it exists as a discussion around what the US is currently doing. I.e. funding Israel, and as a counterargument I am also fed state department interviews.
Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
80% of contant on tik tok is pro Palestine compared to 20% pro Isreal. They cannot have the young generation be made aware of the world’s injustices. Thats why it was the fastest bill to pass.
Shyfer@ttrpg.network 6 months ago
It’s the new red scare basically.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I agree with the chinese intelligence part but other than this is basically the government telling you how to live your life rather than letting you choose yourself. In my opinion we should be allowed to make bad choices. What’s next? Ban on sugar and mandatory excercise for everyone? Obviously I’m being hyperbolic but this is a step in exactly that direction.
Redecco@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Agree that the hyperbolic situations would be problematic but luckily tiktok is only one of the many social media options out there. I’d also consider that content like tiktok can be targeted at kids who arent developed enough to make the right choices yet. Taking freedom away is bad but getting hooked on tiktok is hardly a passive choice when it’s the platforms goal to keep you swiping and social influence makes it near impossible to avoid. I’d see it as a grey area when taking choices away. Like removing a lot of extra sugar from school lunches I think was already a goal, as is taking physical fitness in school. There are choices to avoid those options so it’s not a blanket ban on that opportunity, but I definitely don’t see it as a slippery slope.
There will be something new that pops up. Or the US companies out there might just buy tiktok anyways.
starman@programming.dev 6 months ago
Maybe a wall-mounted screen that would, of course, help you exercise.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I don’t understand. It will just be bought. It won’t go anywhere.
mihies@kbin.social 6 months ago
Let's declare any successful foreign country as enemy and either ban, or better, steal their products. True market.
Confused_Emus@lemmy.world 6 months ago
China would certainly know a lot about stealing intellectual property from successful countries.
Woozythebear@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You’re the type of person to hate on China for the way they control the internet then root for the same thing to happen here.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Apples to Oranges. This isn’t about preventing TikTok users from seeing content the US deems harmful, it’s the delivery mechanism for that content is such a gaping hole of security it doesn’t even qualify as a backdoor espionage. It’s going straight through the front door to gather data illicitly for reasons unknown. Adversarial nations are marked such for good reason and not a title lightly given.
TikTok isn’t the only social media that should be banned here but I’m honestly struggling to understand why people are fighting so hard to defend it, it’s a massive data leaking engine that harvests so much more information that it needs for people to share funny fortnite dances and cat videos. That and siix months from now if the ban goes through some other app is going to pop up to fill the void while existing apps and social media platforms have already been trying to cater to the short video sharing for a long time now.