TikTok to challenge U.S. order banning transactions with the video app(reuters.com)
reuters.com
TikTok to challenge U.S. order banning transactions with the video app
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-trump-exclusive/exclusive-tiktok-to-challenge-u-s-order-banning-transactions-with-the-video-app-idUSKBN25H2QG
10 comments
No, CFIUS has NOT been investigating TikTok for 2 years. It was in November 2019 (10 months ago) that CFIUS started investigating TikTok (ByteDance's 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly) [1]
It amazes me that such incorrect assertions get so mindlessly upvoted on Hacker News.
You've written that elsewhere that "Bytedance is a Cayman Islands company, not Chinese. Despite having offices in Beijing, Bytedance and Tiktok are not beholden to the Chinese National Intelligence law", so it seems you might be unknowingly (or knowingly) spreading incorrect information.
The HN community deserves a lot of blame for being unable to filter out such falsehoods.
[1] https://securitytoday.com/articles/2019/11/04/tiktok-nationa...
It amazes me that such incorrect assertions get so mindlessly upvoted on Hacker News.
You've written that elsewhere that "Bytedance is a Cayman Islands company, not Chinese. Despite having offices in Beijing, Bytedance and Tiktok are not beholden to the Chinese National Intelligence law", so it seems you might be unknowingly (or knowingly) spreading incorrect information.
The HN community deserves a lot of blame for being unable to filter out such falsehoods.
[1] https://securitytoday.com/articles/2019/11/04/tiktok-nationa...
Re: posts with false information.
The cynic in me thinks that HN is not immune to astroturfing by foreign or domestic actors anymore than Reddit or Facebook are.
The cynic in me thinks that HN is not immune to astroturfing by foreign or domestic actors anymore than Reddit or Facebook are.
I would say that HN is, in some ways, more susceptible, due to a combination of user demographics and the site's mechanics.
The IEEPA gives the president the authority to restrict any economic transactions with foreign entities if he declares a national emergency regarding the activity. The judgement as to whether the national emergency is justified is granted to the president with almost no restrictions. The president must send a report to congress within 30 days justifying the declaration. Congress can then chose to over rule the declaration. A new report with justification for continuing the emergency must be sent to Congress at certain intervals and Congress can again choose to override the emergency. These are different from the powers given to the CFIUS under the Defense Protection Act.
At first glance it would appear that Trump has authority under the IEEPA do take the actions he has. Tiktok is most likely going to base their legal action on challenging the constitutionality of the IEEPA. Tiktok's argument of violating due process alludes to this being the case.
At first glance it would appear that Trump has authority under the IEEPA do take the actions he has. Tiktok is most likely going to base their legal action on challenging the constitutionality of the IEEPA. Tiktok's argument of violating due process alludes to this being the case.
The president does not have broad authority under IEEPA.
Congress specifically limited presidential authority when passing the act, and TikTok is protected under IEEPA 50 U.S. Code § 1702(b):
> The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly - (1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value; ... (3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1702
Congress specifically limited presidential authority when passing the act, and TikTok is protected under IEEPA 50 U.S. Code § 1702(b):
> The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly - (1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value; ... (3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1702
For #1, it seems the president could prohibit most app activity as it collects data until such a time they remove the data collection. For #3, TikTok the app is a content delivery platform, not the content itself.
Since there is data collected and something of value, it seems that although parallels can be drawn between the content on TikTok and the list of explicitly allowed items, the whole of TikTok is something different than the items listed in #3.
(And if those are the only exceptions the powers are quite broad.)
Since there is data collected and something of value, it seems that although parallels can be drawn between the content on TikTok and the list of explicitly allowed items, the whole of TikTok is something different than the items listed in #3.
(And if those are the only exceptions the powers are quite broad.)
It's also possible that #1 could be interpreted as having been intended to only protect a tight definition of "personal communications" as single-party-to-single-party, not broadcast communications or social media.
#3 is actually an interesting one. Would it prevent the President from being able to stop a ship owned by a foreign national if it was carrying a single CD-ROM of informational materials? What if it was full of such CD-ROMs? What if part of a frozen bank account was going to be used to facilitate the transfer of information? Would not some hindrance of the free flow of information be an inevitable side effect of ANY action under IEEPA? Of course, one imagines it was not the intention of the drafters of the law to let a single CD-ROM neuter the entire presidential power. My non-lawyer understanding is that courts normally establish some kind of "balancing test" in these scenarios that can be used to draw a line in the sand. But from e.g. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45618.pdf it's unclear whether there's any case law that specifically establishes the boundaries. Regardless, this will be a very interesting saga.
#3 is actually an interesting one. Would it prevent the President from being able to stop a ship owned by a foreign national if it was carrying a single CD-ROM of informational materials? What if it was full of such CD-ROMs? What if part of a frozen bank account was going to be used to facilitate the transfer of information? Would not some hindrance of the free flow of information be an inevitable side effect of ANY action under IEEPA? Of course, one imagines it was not the intention of the drafters of the law to let a single CD-ROM neuter the entire presidential power. My non-lawyer understanding is that courts normally establish some kind of "balancing test" in these scenarios that can be used to draw a line in the sand. But from e.g. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45618.pdf it's unclear whether there's any case law that specifically establishes the boundaries. Regardless, this will be a very interesting saga.
Given the very narrow focus of those limits I would consider the presidents power under the IEEPA extremely broad.
> which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;
Since the order only blocks transfers of value last I checked this exception does not seem on point at all.
Since the order only blocks transfers of value last I checked this exception does not seem on point at all.
[deleted]
I recall people were quite willing to "block speech or media" when Russian operatives were organizing anti-Trump protests on Facebook in 2016. What has changed since?
A private website deciding to block certain content from showing up on its own website is different than the government blocking content.
So if, hypothetically, TikTok were to infer political affiliation for its 60M users, and only show the "don't forget to vote" reminder to conservatives, would you be OK with that? Here's the scenario I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSTHgoaVtSw. They did admit that they'd prefer Biden, I'm just flipping it to show you what the problem is.
We're literally talking about a company which, by virtue of being a Chinese company with significant footprint in the US, has Chinese intelligence agents on staff and can _easily_ swing the elections in ways the alleged "Russian troll farms" couldn't even dream of. Is it wise to allow such a company to operate in the US?
We're literally talking about a company which, by virtue of being a Chinese company with significant footprint in the US, has Chinese intelligence agents on staff and can _easily_ swing the elections in ways the alleged "Russian troll farms" couldn't even dream of. Is it wise to allow such a company to operate in the US?
Punishing them because they could hypothetically do something sounds quite strange to me. Why not punish them for actually doing it, or for planning on doing it? There are tons of crimes I could hypothetically do, I hope I don't get punished for just being able to hypothetically do them.
Secondly, what are the laws about private organizations promoting candidates? If TikTok wants to promote a candidate they should follow those laws. If they obey the laws, that should be fine. If they don't, they should be punished according to those existing laws. If the laws aren't restrictive enough, the laws should be changed.
Secondly, what are the laws about private organizations promoting candidates? If TikTok wants to promote a candidate they should follow those laws. If they obey the laws, that should be fine. If they don't, they should be punished according to those existing laws. If the laws aren't restrictive enough, the laws should be changed.
There's a difference between a random person on the internet "being ok with" something, and it being legal or illegal for a particular government to block that something.
> We're literally talking about a company which ... can _easily_ swing the elections in ways the alleged "Russian troll farms" couldn't even dream of.
If you have actual evidence that shows that's what they're doing, please feel free to present it. I'm generally wary of anything connected or potentially connected to the Chinese government, but I think we should have at least some baseline evidentiary standards.
It's possible that Trump does have evidence of this, and if that's the case, I'd (for once) stand behind what he's doing. But the CIA at least claims they have been unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing.
> We're literally talking about a company which ... can _easily_ swing the elections in ways the alleged "Russian troll farms" couldn't even dream of.
If you have actual evidence that shows that's what they're doing, please feel free to present it. I'm generally wary of anything connected or potentially connected to the Chinese government, but I think we should have at least some baseline evidentiary standards.
It's possible that Trump does have evidence of this, and if that's the case, I'd (for once) stand behind what he's doing. But the CIA at least claims they have been unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing.
It's different when the president does it.
Are you implying that presidential elections have any effects on foreign policy?> Russian operatives were organizing anti-Trump protests
That seems unlikely. Source?
That seems unlikely. Source?
If I recall what I read in the Mueller report correctly, Russia sponsored protests on both sides of the political spectrum, reportedly focusing on topics they thought would increase racial tensions
> sponsored
Why the past tense? Seems to me like someone is still "sponsoring" racial tensions in the US. This has been in the works for quite some time, and it's paying dividends now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI. The entirety of the US media apparatus, as well as the entirety of the political establishment is happy to play along.
Why the past tense? Seems to me like someone is still "sponsoring" racial tensions in the US. This has been in the works for quite some time, and it's paying dividends now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI. The entirety of the US media apparatus, as well as the entirety of the political establishment is happy to play along.
> Why the past tense?
Because the Mueller report did not contain any information from the future as far as I am aware. :)
But yes, I don’t think we have any reason to believe that Russia is acting any differently today.
Because the Mueller report did not contain any information from the future as far as I am aware. :)
But yes, I don’t think we have any reason to believe that Russia is acting any differently today.
Were they pro and anti Trump protests? I thought they were more about racial tensions than about party tensions.
Astroturfing isn't protected as free speech. There is no evidence Tiktok was being misused for propaganda.
>Radio Free Asia (RFA) published an article explaining the reason that the U.S. closed China’s Consulate in Houston.
>The article stated that the U.S. has known that the staff members at the consulate were conducting suspicious activities, but, for a while, it did not take any action. The Second Department of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which is the PLA’s intelligence unit, sent staff members from a large network company, with fake IDs, to China’s Consulate in Houston. Those technicians used a large video platform’s backend data to identify people who might participate in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and ANTIFA’s protests and then created and sent them customized videos on how to organize riots and how to do promotions.
>The purpose was to “weaponize” big data technology. It delivered relevant materials precisely to those people who were most likely to participate in the protests, while other people could not even find those videos.
>RFA did not spell out the company names. A Twitter account said the technicians were from Huawei and the video platform they used to identify candidates and push videos to was TikTok.
http://chinascope.org/archives/24225?doing_wp_cron=159809560...
>The article stated that the U.S. has known that the staff members at the consulate were conducting suspicious activities, but, for a while, it did not take any action. The Second Department of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which is the PLA’s intelligence unit, sent staff members from a large network company, with fake IDs, to China’s Consulate in Houston. Those technicians used a large video platform’s backend data to identify people who might participate in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and ANTIFA’s protests and then created and sent them customized videos on how to organize riots and how to do promotions.
>The purpose was to “weaponize” big data technology. It delivered relevant materials precisely to those people who were most likely to participate in the protests, while other people could not even find those videos.
>RFA did not spell out the company names. A Twitter account said the technicians were from Huawei and the video platform they used to identify candidates and push videos to was TikTok.
http://chinascope.org/archives/24225?doing_wp_cron=159809560...
What is wrong with being political against an ideology threatening the World?
World needs to reciprocate to China in like India did recently. If China is a closed garden with entry gates controlling the inflow into China, World needs to build exit gates controlling the outflow from China. No other justification is required.
World needs to reciprocate to China in like India did recently. If China is a closed garden with entry gates controlling the inflow into China, World needs to build exit gates controlling the outflow from China. No other justification is required.
Marking an ideology as “threatening the world” is inherently political.
[deleted]
the hysterics when china is involved are amusing. "ideology threatening the world" is just a comical accusation to levy when juxtaposed with the West's track record of imperialism, forcibly spreading "democracy" and supporting coups worldwide, initiating wars across the globe - the list goes on. Be upfront with it already, we all know it's really about power and economics.
no, the CCP is far more ethnosupremacist and totalitarian
As someone who's pretty skeptic of US/west foreign policy, I see little difference, but still a difference.
And I do believe the authoritarianism it's a kind of protectionism, a strategy that allows them to grow economically and politically while defending from foreign intervention, and find likely that they will reduce the authoritarian policy to US levels if they achieve the kind of hegemony that US has... But I might be wrong. So there's real danger.
And I do believe the authoritarianism it's a kind of protectionism, a strategy that allows them to grow economically and politically while defending from foreign intervention, and find likely that they will reduce the authoritarian policy to US levels if they achieve the kind of hegemony that US has... But I might be wrong. So there's real danger.
Exactly democracies have lots of problems but they don't compare to the totalitarianism of China.
Posted wrongly so pasting from above.
WoW, lots of angry words. West has its problems but they don't compare to China. But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?
And to elaborate on threat to the world:
1. Who caused current pandemic and why?
2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?
3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?
4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?
WoW, lots of angry words. West has its problems but they don't compare to China. But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?
And to elaborate on threat to the world:
1. Who caused current pandemic and why?
2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?
3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?
4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?
1. Nobody caused it. Are you seriously implying some lab-grown conspiracy? It could have happened anywhere.
2. I cannot believe you're arguing mishandling of the pandemic => threat to the world when we can all see that Western countries are struggling so much more to muster a proper response. China is open again.
3. How much prosperity and development did the US cost South America? Vietnam? Iraq? How do border squabbles compare to the damage the UK inflicted on India?
4. This is a threat to the world..how? And we've arrived at the same place with credit rating, social pressure, woke culture, so what do I care whether it's the government imposing it or the people?
> West has its problems but they don't compare to China
You don't get to just assert this as an obvious truth. It's decidedly non-obvious to anyone not drunk on Western Kool-Aid. My position is that they are closer than you think, and that you prefer the West because you are part of the West. Which is understandable - but let's drop the pretenses.
2. I cannot believe you're arguing mishandling of the pandemic => threat to the world when we can all see that Western countries are struggling so much more to muster a proper response. China is open again.
3. How much prosperity and development did the US cost South America? Vietnam? Iraq? How do border squabbles compare to the damage the UK inflicted on India?
4. This is a threat to the world..how? And we've arrived at the same place with credit rating, social pressure, woke culture, so what do I care whether it's the government imposing it or the people?
> West has its problems but they don't compare to China
You don't get to just assert this as an obvious truth. It's decidedly non-obvious to anyone not drunk on Western Kool-Aid. My position is that they are closer than you think, and that you prefer the West because you are part of the West. Which is understandable - but let's drop the pretenses.
1. and 2.
Yes China caused it by trying to be hide the truth in the early stages of infection. Up until March China and WHO was misleading the entire world. Are you saying this didn't happen?
West is struggling because they cannot force draconian laws of it's citizens. Do you believe only 5k died in China?
3. How Western imprelism are a justification for Chinese incursions into their neighbor's territories? How exactly China is going to bring development by accquiring territories of neighbors?
4. They aren't comparable. In China you just vanish the moment like the Wuhan Whistle blowers vanished.
I understand you love CCP so good luck.
3. How Western imprelism are a justification for Chinese incursions into their neighbor's territories? How exactly China is going to bring development by accquiring territories of neighbors?
4. They aren't comparable. In China you just vanish the moment like the Wuhan Whistle blowers vanished.
I understand you love CCP so good luck.
No. We should not respond to tyranny by being a tyranny. We should respond to it by standing up for our values: freedom, free speech, individual rights, open borders, free trade, and so on. If our system is so good---and it is---China's system is no threat.
Your point of view---responding to a perceived "threat" by abandoning our principles and freedoms---is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11.
Your point of view---responding to a perceived "threat" by abandoning our principles and freedoms---is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11.
> No. We should not respond to tyranny by being a tyranny
How responding back by blocking companies is tyranny? Who had oppressed if TikTok it's blocked?
> is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11
How ??
How responding back by blocking companies is tyranny? Who had oppressed if TikTok it's blocked?
> is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11
How ??
> Who had oppressed if TikTok it's blocked
Millions of Americans who use TikTok. Thousands of Americans who work at TikTok. American investors in ByteDance.
And, when anyone's rights are violated, everyone's rights are violated.
> is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11
Massive curtailment of freedom and massive growth of the police state in the aftermath of 9/11. This has caused far more harm to Americans than the attack itself. Bin Laden achieved what he wanted, which was to cripple our freedom and cause us to lose confidence in ourselves.
Millions of Americans who use TikTok. Thousands of Americans who work at TikTok. American investors in ByteDance.
And, when anyone's rights are violated, everyone's rights are violated.
> is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11
Massive curtailment of freedom and massive growth of the police state in the aftermath of 9/11. This has caused far more harm to Americans than the attack itself. Bin Laden achieved what he wanted, which was to cripple our freedom and cause us to lose confidence in ourselves.
WoW, lots of angry words. West has its problems but they don't compare to China.
But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?
And to elaborate on threat to the world:
1. Who caused current pandemic and why?
2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?
3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?
4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?
But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?
And to elaborate on threat to the world:
1. Who caused current pandemic and why?
2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?
3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?
4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?
Maybe Congress could get off its ass and pass some data privacy laws first?
No, no, we can’t have that because then the US government and American companies couldn’t siphon all the data up for nefarious, I mean patriotic, purposes.
Exactly, if we fix that how are we going to deflect everything accurate and bad by yelling “whataboutism” at anyone with a brain
[deleted]
American companies are blocked from doing business in China either by the great firewall, having to transfer intellectual property, having to give the government unfettered access to user data or by having to have Chinese ownership. Bytedance has no legs to stand on here.
Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?
I would have a problem if it involved america devolving to china's level, making life worse for its citizens (eg. surveillance, censorship). However, I don't have any problems with america engaging in tit-for-tat exchange against china.
> Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?
Last I checked, American companies can’t challenge Beijing in court the way Tik Tok is here.
Last I checked, American companies can’t challenge Beijing in court the way Tik Tok is here.
How did you check? If there's some kind of resource for answering questions like that, I'd be very interested in learning about it.
I don’t have a resource to answer this question, but the lack of court proceedings and the fact that just about every big tech company is barred and has been barred for over a decade by the great firewall indirectly answers that question.
If there was a way to sue yourself into the Chinese market, you would see that happening.
> How did you check?
Legal counsel.
Legal counsel.
So because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable?
> because we’re better in one or two or so ways, we can’t say that the bad things are comparable
The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like).
Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.
The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like).
Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.
It's not diversity of differences that matters but rather the magnitude of those differences. Being different in one substantive way is infinitely better than being different in a myriad of little ways.
America becoming more like China when dealing with China is by all means a desirable outcome!
To an extent the iterated prisoner's dilemma game must be played with the tit-for-tat response to a defection, but if the US can't find a way to play that game without sacrificing its core values, then the US implicitly loses the game anyway (people more versed in game theory please feel free to correct me).
You have to be careful not to become what you dislike in the process, though. That's certainly not a desirable outcome.
I think the US can toe this line successfully, with care[0]. Countries that don't give us meaningful access to their internal markets should just not get meaningful access to ours. Simple to implement ahead of the fact, but unfortunately too many US interests are tied up in China to simply unravel it all right now.
[0] Care that I do not trust the current administration to wield, but also sadly do not expect the hopefully-next administration to want to wield at all. A fear of mine is that Biden will choose to bend over backward to appease China after Trump's ham-fisted trade war, and things will go back to the way they were, with China's interests running roughshod over the US's.
I think the US can toe this line successfully, with care[0]. Countries that don't give us meaningful access to their internal markets should just not get meaningful access to ours. Simple to implement ahead of the fact, but unfortunately too many US interests are tied up in China to simply unravel it all right now.
[0] Care that I do not trust the current administration to wield, but also sadly do not expect the hopefully-next administration to want to wield at all. A fear of mine is that Biden will choose to bend over backward to appease China after Trump's ham-fisted trade war, and things will go back to the way they were, with China's interests running roughshod over the US's.
I think the specific ways Trump is going about it (targeting individual companies, and the insane bit about the treasury deserving a I-bankers commission) are awful but I also think that taking zero action towards reciprocal market access because "we don't want to become more like China" is also a fool's game.
Additionally, TikTok represents major US and international interests through its users and investors.
I doubt the app would continue to be successful without the original creative minds behind it.
I doubt the app would continue to be successful without the original creative minds behind it.
When you respond to the guys who follow nasty strategies with niceness, you are literally rewarding the bad behaviors. If being cooperative wouldn't get much differences than being exploitative, then the nice guys will vanish and only the bad guys will remain. A reciprocal strategy is necessary and beneficial long-term for the world IMO.
The well-known book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins has an interesting chapter titled Nice Guys Finish First giving a good illustration relevant to this idea.
The well-known book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins has an interesting chapter titled Nice Guys Finish First giving a good illustration relevant to this idea.
Bob slaps Steve in the face repeatedly. Steve stands with his hands by his side. Finally right as he starts to defend himself Jason sees him raising his arms and gasps “Steve! For shame! Do you want to be more like Bob?! Put your arms down where they belong!”
(Nothing about retaliating against China has anything to do with TikTok’s “ban” which is just a paroxysm from a deranged moron)
(Nothing about retaliating against China has anything to do with TikTok’s “ban” which is just a paroxysm from a deranged moron)
This, but every time Bob and Steve slap one another, they end up backhanding one of their kids on the backswing. China's great firewall is to the detriment of their citizens, and retaliating in kind is to the detriment of ours.
US legal precedent is based on legal decisions in the US, not legal decisions in China.
[deleted]
This is not the reason why the Trump administration is doing this nor is it even a good reason.
The reason is we don’t want a Chinese company which can be compelled by the Chinese government to hand over the data to operate a social network used by so many Americans. Trump even said as much so.
If the US government can do national security letters, force Apple to make modified devices for covert operations, And monitor/log metadata, China is able to do so to their domestic companies as well.
Really so long as China challenges the US for superiority there is no way to avoid conflicts like this and no real way for China to comply except to maintain a clear #2 position. Inventing and speculating on nonsensical rationale doesn't really help in any way.
The reason is we don’t want a Chinese company which can be compelled by the Chinese government to hand over the data to operate a social network used by so many Americans. Trump even said as much so.
If the US government can do national security letters, force Apple to make modified devices for covert operations, And monitor/log metadata, China is able to do so to their domestic companies as well.
Really so long as China challenges the US for superiority there is no way to avoid conflicts like this and no real way for China to comply except to maintain a clear #2 position. Inventing and speculating on nonsensical rationale doesn't really help in any way.
Bytedance is a Cayman Islands company, not Chinese. Despite having offices in Beijing, Bytedance and Tiktok are not beholden to the Chinese National Intelligence law.
TaoTiao, on the other hand, is a subsidiary in China and is beholden to CNI, but the executive order has nothing to do with that company and there is no evidence that it receives data from TikTok.
TaoTiao, on the other hand, is a subsidiary in China and is beholden to CNI, but the executive order has nothing to do with that company and there is no evidence that it receives data from TikTok.
The idea that ByteDance is not beholden to the Chinese state is contradicted by the founder's own words.
https://chinamediaproject.org/2018/04/11/tech-shame-in-the-n...
https://chinamediaproject.org/2018/04/11/tech-shame-in-the-n...
That letter is only about Toutiao, the Chinese subsidiary I talked about.
If you truly believe someone who would sign his name to something this obsequious about one of his companies would tell Beijing to get lost for another one of his companies I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
The only bridge for sale here is confusing this letter written by TaoTiao PR with Bytedance or TikTok. Again, TaoTiao is beholden to Chinese National Intelligence law, not ByteDance or TikTok.
Apple has forked over the same with it's subsidiary in China: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...
Apple has forked over the same with it's subsidiary in China: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...
[deleted]
I don't understand this naivete.
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/china-national...
https://www.mannheimerswartling.se/globalassets/nyhetsbrev/m...
Do we really believe because, "legally", the company is not in China, is not subject to CCP control? It's not the law that binds them, it's party lines.
If Bytedance is not subject to said control, why do they ban content critical with China, knowing the possible backlash?
https://www.vox.com/open-sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-...
US politicians’ concern over TikTok began with an investigation the Guardian published on September 25, which revealed leaked documents that showed TikTok instructing its moderators to censor videos that mentioned topics sensitive to the Communist Party of China: Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the religious group Falun Gong, for instance. The Guardian’s investigation came after the Washington Post noted that a search for Hong Kong-related topics on TikTok showed virtually zero content about the ongoing and widely publicized pro-democracy protests, which were a major topic on other social media sites at the time.
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/china-national...
https://www.mannheimerswartling.se/globalassets/nyhetsbrev/m...
Do we really believe because, "legally", the company is not in China, is not subject to CCP control? It's not the law that binds them, it's party lines.
If Bytedance is not subject to said control, why do they ban content critical with China, knowing the possible backlash?
https://www.vox.com/open-sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-...
US politicians’ concern over TikTok began with an investigation the Guardian published on September 25, which revealed leaked documents that showed TikTok instructing its moderators to censor videos that mentioned topics sensitive to the Communist Party of China: Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the religious group Falun Gong, for instance. The Guardian’s investigation came after the Washington Post noted that a search for Hong Kong-related topics on TikTok showed virtually zero content about the ongoing and widely publicized pro-democracy protests, which were a major topic on other social media sites at the time.
If our litmus test for being critically compromised by the CCP is any company that has made changes to avoid backlash in China, then we're going to need a bigger ban.
Your information is a decade out of date. American brands, franchises, and products, from iPhones, to Starbucks, to McDonalds, to Teslas are everywhere in China.
Oh, and China is Facebook's second largest market (Despite the app itself being banned, Facebook does a ton of business there.) It's a huge market for Microsoft, Apple, and even Google makes billions of dollars from it.
The Great Firewall doesn't seem to be doing a great job of keeping any of them out.
Oh, and China is Facebook's second largest market (Despite the app itself being banned, Facebook does a ton of business there.) It's a huge market for Microsoft, Apple, and even Google makes billions of dollars from it.
The Great Firewall doesn't seem to be doing a great job of keeping any of them out.
We are talking about TikTok here.
Please do not intentionally mix 2 entities. There is law forced upon TikTok to abide by US law (or any local laws where TikTok operates).
Protecting TikTok is fighting the abuses forced onto the US and other international corps by CCP and the Chinese government.
Please do not intentionally mix 2 entities. There is law forced upon TikTok to abide by US law (or any local laws where TikTok operates).
Protecting TikTok is fighting the abuses forced onto the US and other international corps by CCP and the Chinese government.
We force other countries as well, such as the inane war on drugs. We threaten to sanction countries that legalize drugs. It’s projection of power 101.
China’s no saint but the level you have been brainwashed to think America is such the great protector of democracy and freedom is typical global-unaware American ignorance.
China’s no saint but the level you have been brainwashed to think America is such the great protector of democracy and freedom is typical global-unaware American ignorance.
Finally the king is naked. Chinese industry has show that what the US wants is to submit other countries, not real competition.
I do not think this type of discussion is useful at all.
Even inside China. They need to learn and study other nation's policies and laws to make sure they can continue maintain a society of 1.4 Billion people.
Both US and China would benefit from open competition, in general.
Of cuz, in certain scenarios & times, the discussion is much more nuanced. Like the TikTok discussion here.
Even inside China. They need to learn and study other nation's policies and laws to make sure they can continue maintain a society of 1.4 Billion people.
Both US and China would benefit from open competition, in general.
Of cuz, in certain scenarios & times, the discussion is much more nuanced. Like the TikTok discussion here.
>They need to learn and study other nation's policies and laws to make sure they can continue maintain a society of 1.4 Billion people.
Study, yes. Copy or follow, no. China should stay China. We have enough countries trying to dance after the US tune already.
>Both US and China would benefit from open competition, in general.
Absolutely, but not under US rules or law outside the US. Tiktok should be allowed to collect just as much information as Facebook and Google or more if they want to as as long as it legal. This whole trying to make different rules in the US for foreign businesses is worse than what China is blamed of doing. Chinese businesses have more rules to follow in China than foreign businesses. Exactly the opposite than what the US is doing.
If the US won't do business with Chinese businesses because they are sometimes mixed in with the state they are playing favourites because lots and lots of trade is done with state owned and run businesses from other countries, like Scandinavia. The problem here isn't what China is or isn't doing. It is the colour of their skin and that it isn't the capitalist system the US wants everyone to be.
Study, yes. Copy or follow, no. China should stay China. We have enough countries trying to dance after the US tune already.
>Both US and China would benefit from open competition, in general.
Absolutely, but not under US rules or law outside the US. Tiktok should be allowed to collect just as much information as Facebook and Google or more if they want to as as long as it legal. This whole trying to make different rules in the US for foreign businesses is worse than what China is blamed of doing. Chinese businesses have more rules to follow in China than foreign businesses. Exactly the opposite than what the US is doing.
If the US won't do business with Chinese businesses because they are sometimes mixed in with the state they are playing favourites because lots and lots of trade is done with state owned and run businesses from other countries, like Scandinavia. The problem here isn't what China is or isn't doing. It is the colour of their skin and that it isn't the capitalist system the US wants everyone to be.
Exactly, the real problem with the US is that it cannot control China, like it does with other countries integrated to the US system. And they supported China as long as they had hope to control their political system.
Does the US control Russia? No.
It's not about control, it's about national security. Allowing a company to operate in the US that is practically under control by a hostile authoritarian system is a national security risk.
It's not about control, it's about national security. Allowing a company to operate in the US that is practically under control by a hostile authoritarian system is a national security risk.
Why isn't Lenovo banned then?
Lenovo didn’t piss off Trump like TikTok users did.
I wonder what makes it a hostile system, since they have been commercially cooperating with the US for decades. The official party line of the US government doesn't even make sense.
Well, let me tell you, you thought I was brainwashed to pro-USA; and I have been called were linked with CCP as well.
What I was saying is that China and CCP, in terms of respecting international laws, are behind US.
So here US has the opportunity to continue setting the example.
I of course do not fantasizing US government being purely good.
What I was saying is that China and CCP, in terms of respecting international laws, are behind US.
So here US has the opportunity to continue setting the example.
I of course do not fantasizing US government being purely good.
>The CCP, in terms of respecting international laws, are behind the US.
Only because the US unilaterally decides what international law means. China has not committed any offence of international law anywhere even near that of the Iraq War in the last half-century.
The US only seems good because they set the example. The US literally has the Hague invasion act. It has absolutely no care in the world about international law, international law retroactively changes to suit the US.
Only because the US unilaterally decides what international law means. China has not committed any offence of international law anywhere even near that of the Iraq War in the last half-century.
The US only seems good because they set the example. The US literally has the Hague invasion act. It has absolutely no care in the world about international law, international law retroactively changes to suit the US.
> Only because the US unilaterally decides what international law means.
That would be news to Mike Pompeo who just lost a big UNSC vote this week.
That would be news to Mike Pompeo who just lost a big UNSC vote this week.
Since when did the US care what the UNSC says? Did the US not lose the UNSC vote for the invasion of Iraq? Did that matter to the 1 000 000 dead Iraqis?
International law only matters as far as the narrative it sets.
International law only matters as far as the narrative it sets.
I found YouTube's Legal Eagle's analysis of the legality of the ban interesting. Would be interesting to hear HN's take:
https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw
https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw
The president has extremely broad powers. In general I think it safe to assume he can do these things (sans demanding a cut of the proceeds). Typically these powers are granted during emergencies, but again, the president seems to be able to declare those whenever he wants.
It's just before now they were wielded with restraint and mostly ignored. This should be a wake up call.
Part of the issue is there is now a real discussion over whether or not this is allowed. In a previous United States that this discussion would have existed would have been ludicrous. The basic premise of the IEEPA seems valid, but there seems to be very little effective check by congress.
It's just before now they were wielded with restraint and mostly ignored. This should be a wake up call.
Part of the issue is there is now a real discussion over whether or not this is allowed. In a previous United States that this discussion would have existed would have been ludicrous. The basic premise of the IEEPA seems valid, but there seems to be very little effective check by congress.
Goodness, YouTube is a network now.
Still trying to exploit the assimetry I see.
When did the last American company manage to challenge being banned or forced to take on a local "slightly more than equal" partner in china?
When did the last American company manage to challenge being banned or forced to take on a local "slightly more than equal" partner in china?
I feel there might be disparate impacts between the reactions from CCP threats and USFG threats...
It feels like they don’t need to take any action, the danger has probably passed. Trump extended the window to 90 days which will be after the election. He achieved what he wanted, to appear tough on China and so if history is any indication about how he deals with China, this will be ignored and things will be go back to normal without any issues for China. The president is all talk and no action usually.
Facebook's Instagram came out with "reels", essentially a clone of Tik Tok. And isn't that act a complaint by us companies against China?
How would Americans be better off with TikTok in Microsoft's hands?
THE MICROSOFT POLICE STATE: MASS SURVEILLANCE, FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND THE AZURE CLOUD https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/microsoft-police-state-m...
THE MICROSOFT POLICE STATE: MASS SURVEILLANCE, FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND THE AZURE CLOUD https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/microsoft-police-state-m...
I'm not sure if Americans are better off, but the sale is certainly for political reasons. It's inherently about a fear of the Chinese government data-mining with millions of American citizens; if an American entity is doing it, they probably wouldn't care nearly as much.
The US government’s concern with ByteDance is, and always has been, a question of national security, not privacy.
But for that matter, privacy laws are stronger in the US too.
But for that matter, privacy laws are stronger in the US too.
Privacy is a national security issue. Actively monitoring citizens, privately and publicly, and smearing the data across the US and the rest of the world is going to prove to be a massive national vulnerability in the long run.
Yes, it is well established that the data being collected by social media platforms is ripe for abuse.
The question is: which regulators do the social media companies answer to?
Don’t forget that that national security includes other concerns outside of your personal privacy, for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/18/repor...
The question is: which regulators do the social media companies answer to?
Don’t forget that that national security includes other concerns outside of your personal privacy, for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/18/repor...
> The question is: which regulators do the social media companies answer to?
That's not the question I posed, kube-system. I asked, "How would Americans be better off with TikTok in Microsoft's hands?"
The issue you raise, about which regulators social media companies answer to, dismisses the conflict of interest that occurs when those regulators' align with the police departments that contract Microsoft to surveil citizens. When that happens, are American citizens better off? Clearly not, when they are being targeted by unconstitutional police actions, e.g. actions that violate the first amendment.
That's not the question I posed, kube-system. I asked, "How would Americans be better off with TikTok in Microsoft's hands?"
The issue you raise, about which regulators social media companies answer to, dismisses the conflict of interest that occurs when those regulators' align with the police departments that contract Microsoft to surveil citizens. When that happens, are American citizens better off? Clearly not, when they are being targeted by unconstitutional police actions, e.g. actions that violate the first amendment.
ByteDance’s policy for responding to law enforcement requests is the same as Microsoft. Of all the domestic privacy issues you could have brought up, I don’t think local law enforcement is a differentiating concern.
That seems like missing the forest for the trees—we don't have any laws or institutions that apply well here and no legislators willing to write better ones or direct the institutions we have in any sane direction—nobody wants to turn away from this maniacal obsession with growth and be the person who killed the golden goose.
The spectrum of privacy laws (and the underlying laws that make a right to privacy possible) around the world are a lot more broad than “Europe vs not-Europe”. Discussion here often focuses on the differences between the US and EU, but in a broader context, the US legal system is a lot ideologically closer to Western Europe than most of the world.
How wouldn't it? Your link just seems to indicate we shouldn't allow China to have this kind of data.
> Your link just seems to indicate we shouldn't allow China to have this kind of data.
How do you get that from the article? The only mention of China in the article is the photo caption "Microsoft’s MAPP patrol vehicle in Durban sports a facial recognition camera from China-based Hikvision."
How do you get that from the article? The only mention of China in the article is the photo caption "Microsoft’s MAPP patrol vehicle in Durban sports a facial recognition camera from China-based Hikvision."
Because you can take MS to court for mishandling US citizens data, in the US, in a way that you can't take ByteDance, for the same reason, in China.
Not defending MS. Just stating the obvious with ByteDance.
Not defending MS. Just stating the obvious with ByteDance.
I wonder why there isn't a tinder like app where there are no photos but you ask for a price to meet and when you pay that price, then it opens a conversation channel where photos can be exchanged with single click and it's on you to see if you wish to accept or decline the proposal.
There are tons of fake people on tinder, who never show up. Payment will act as deterrent for these con people.
And dating app makes money as % of the transaction that occurs on the app.
And it never charges you without actually getting a "meeting" out of the app so experience is fair.
And if women are looking to meet man, they can also initiate and offer to pay.
Tinder sucks you can pay for Tinder Gold but it doesn't guarantee even a single date.
There are tons of fake people on tinder, who never show up. Payment will act as deterrent for these con people.
And dating app makes money as % of the transaction that occurs on the app.
And it never charges you without actually getting a "meeting" out of the app so experience is fair.
And if women are looking to meet man, they can also initiate and offer to pay.
Tinder sucks you can pay for Tinder Gold but it doesn't guarantee even a single date.
CFIUS is the governing body who decides which foreign investments are a threat to the U.S., not the president, and they have been investigating TikTok for two years without finding anything despite the recent executive order. It makes the executive order look more like political headline bait than having actual teeth, especially considering IEEPA prohibits executive power from being used to block speech or media.