TikTok ban?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Y’all realize this doesn’t “ban” tik tok but would force it to be sold to an American company

[Horus]

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1766258633430425692?t=3OaKdnraV47urFWERE2cB...

Has anyone else noticed a softening of the GOP's China rhetoric lately, not just on tiktok but as a whole? Their hardcore anti China stance is one of the few things they were better than Dems on, and they're blowing it.

[emailking]

I'm a big supporter of this policy, not because I care about Chinese influence, data privacy or anything but soley because it will rid the literary world of the cancer that is booktok.

I didn't know about that, but reading about it, it seems like a way to get people into reading.

[DaleCooper]

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1766258633430425692?t=3OaKdnraV47urFWERE2cB...

Has anyone else noticed a softening of the GOP's China rhetoric lately, not just on tiktok but as a whole? Their hardcore anti China stance is one of the few things they were better than Dems on, and they're blowing it.

Conservatives hate America now.

[DrScholl]

It's a bit concerning that so many people want to see Tik Tok banned because they don't like it. There are major freedom of speech issues with that sentiment.

And as for thinking it's dumb thinking a Tik Tok ban would hurt Biden, clearly a lot of you do not realize the reach that Tik Tok has. It only can take a few thousand votes in a few states to decide this election. You all make Biden's age an issue so imagine what it would look like for an elderly person to be seen as taking away a platform for young people.

[emailking]

Y’all realize this doesn’t “ban” tik tok but would force it to be sold to an American company

I believe it does ban it if not sold by 6 months after passage.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Summarized: we must control the narrative.

heatcharger, I do not think that is an accurate summary of my post.

It is. Once you veer into complaining about the type of content on the platform it’s clear you want changes to what Americans are seeing on social media. Most anti-TikTok arguments end up in this direction.

The issue isn't necessarily the type of content (I am not calling for any state control or banning of TruthSocial, for instance), the issue is that it is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.  Even if China was purely using this to inject truth and justice and happiness into our lives, it is still bad for America to give a foreign enemy state such a powerful information tool in the pockets of every American.

The fact that it's actually being used to broadcast harmful misinformation and complete BS, overwhelmingly in service of an anti-American foreign policy agenda that by sheer coincidence just so happens to align with exactly what China wants Americans to believe, is icing on the cake.

Regardless, if you think things like community notes on Twitter are a bad thing, it is most likely because you either have some agenda that is lie-driven and undermined by any sort of added context or fact-checking, or you believe something that deep down you know is false and get very triggered anytime you are faced with reality.

Again, whatever happened to Republicans being strong against China?  I'm old enough to remember four years ago when that was a thing.  Now Republicans are willing to die on the hill of defending the Chinese Communist Party's right to have an unlimited disinformation & propaganda chip plugged into the brain of every single American, and if I think that's bad, it's because I want to "control the narrative."  Whose narrative?  China's?  Why would it even be a bad thing for America to control China's narrative?  Why should we want China's narrative to dominate the American public?

[Horus]

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1766258633430425692?t=3OaKdnraV47urFWERE2cB...

Has anyone else noticed a softening of the GOP's China rhetoric lately, not just on tiktok but as a whole? Their hardcore anti China stance is one of the few things they were better than Dems on, and they're blowing it.

Conservatives hate America now.

Oh I don't think the hatred is new. They're just more open about it now. This is why they've always been obsessed with meaningless symbols of patriotism like the pledge of allegiance, standing for the anthem and owning a thousand flags.

[President Johnson]

It's a bit concerning that so many people want to see Tik Tok banned because they don't like it. There are major freedom of speech issues with that sentiment.

And as for thinking it's dumb thinking a Tik Tok ban would hurt Biden, clearly a lot of you do not realize the reach that Tik Tok has. It only can take a few thousand votes in a few states to decide this election. You all make Biden's age an issue so imagine what it would look like for an elderly person to be seen as taking away a platform for young people.

Whether a ban is legally possible is another question up for debate, I don't think people are calling for a ban because they don't like it. At least I guess a majority of supporters in this forum feel that way. It's more that TikTok is seen as a propaganda tool for the CCP. Even if TikTok was banned, there are multiple other platforms available to express free speech. And most of them are American.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's a bit concerning that so many people want to see Tik Tok banned because they don't like it.

Love to spend twenty minutes putting a lot of effort into a five-paragraph post where I clearly and thoroughly explain my position, and list several extremely good reasons why TikTok should be transferred to American ownership, and then someone just says "lol you only want to ban TikTok because you don't like it."

clearly a lot of you do not realize the reach that Tik Tok has.  It only can take a few thousand votes in a few states to decide this election.

Yes, it can only take a few thousand votes to decide an election, which is why we shouldn't give the Chinese Communist Party the power to use their massively popular and totally unaccountable app to spread disinformation and lies about Joe Biden, American democracy or the logistics of voting to tens of millions of Americans.

Just one video of a girl sitting in her car looking at the camera saying "guys, you'll never guess what I just learned, they say you have to vote by a ballot, but actually you can just download this app to vote, and you don't even have to leave your house", which the algorithm artificially boosts into the stratosphere and specifically targets at young voters, would probably be enough to remove a few thousand votes.

Will China do it?  Probably not.  But why should we let them hold that kind of gun to our head?  Why should we give any foreign state this kind of power over us?  Do we really think there's a 0% chance that China is going to abstain from using its information superweapon to degrade the electoral chances of the candidate who's been tough on China and wants to take away their weapon, and promote the electoral chances of the candidate who's suddenly extremely soft on China and wants to keep it running?  Would Republicans have stood for this four years ago when one of their main conspiracy theories was that China was going to rig the election for Joe Biden because of Hunter's business dealings?

And by the way, I would feel the same way if China's interests were aligned with Biden and being used to undermine Trump.  American democracy should be owned by the voters not hostile foreign powers, be they Russian or Chinese or Qatari or who-knows-what, regardless of whether or not the agendas of those powers happen to align with mine for one cycle.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Y’all realize this doesn’t “ban” tik tok but would force it to be sold to an American company

I believe it does ban it if not sold by 6 months after passage.

Yea and is a massive social media platform. I’d be shocked if that doesn’t happen

[emailking]

Y’all realize this doesn’t “ban” tik tok but would force it to be sold to an American company

I believe it does ban it if not sold by 6 months after passage.

Yea and is a massive social media platform. I’d be shocked if that doesn’t happen

I'm not so sure. A court will probably put an injunction on it as happened with the Montana ban. And then I imagine it will eventually be overturned. In which case they wouldn't have to sell.

[DaleCooper]

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1766258633430425692?t=3OaKdnraV47urFWERE2cB...

Has anyone else noticed a softening of the GOP's China rhetoric lately, not just on tiktok but as a whole? Their hardcore anti China stance is one of the few things they were better than Dems on, and they're blowing it.

 

Conservatives hate America now.

Oh I don't think the hatred is new. They're just more open about it now. This is why they've always been obsessed with meaningless symbols of patriotism like the pledge of allegiance, standing for the anthem and owning a thousand flags.

They openly root against America now, I should say.

[quesaisje]

Look, this isn't about TikTok.  TikTok is really bad on its own, and it's entirely possible that after ByteDance is forced to sell its American operation to, like, Oracle or whoever, it will still be an outrageously addictive app, whose format naturally gravitates towards outrage and extremism and conspiratorial thought, and whose algorithm organically creates information bubbles where disinformation spreads like wildfire.

But:

A) Even if that is the case, this kind of information about how Americans think, what our neuroses and biases and fears are, what we love and hate, should not be in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.  This is just a simple, obvious matter of national security.  Delivering a foreign enemy the most perfect guidebook imaginable on how to manipulate Americans is bad.  Any app that produces data at sufficient volume and quality to make this a concern should not be allowed to operate in the United States if there is a risk of said data being shared with a hostile foreign power who could subsequently weaponize it against us.

B) It's inherently obvious that the app could be weaponized against Americans.  Now maybe you are like me, and you believe it's no accident that the app is dominated by anti-American viewpoints, conspiracy theories and flat-out lies.  But even if you don't, it's impossible to disagree that it could be weaponized by our enemy to inject propaganda into the minds of Americans in an incredibly effective and subtle way.  That's bad, that's a weapon we shouldn't give them.  That's a possibility we shouldn't allow for.

C) Part of the problem with CCP ownership of TikTok is that the U.S. government has no way to audit it, so if they are controlling the algorithm, or if they're not today but tomorrow they start to, we have no way of knowing.  If an American company owned it, we could regulate it, audit it, pass legislation forcing them to police disinformation and remove content harmful to mental health.  Even a simple community notes system similar to Twitter would be massive for cutting down on TikTok's ability to spread totally fake BS faster than the speed of light.  But we don't have any kind of control over its operations today, nor do we have any insight into the black box of its algorithm.

I would say the same about any app or website operating on American soil that becomes too powerful and collects too much data.  We can not allow any foreign app to obtain such a massive amount of data about Americans that could potentially be weaponized against us.  We can not allow any foreign app to hold such a massive degree of control over what Americans see every day, what we believe, how we perceive the world around us, etc. without any ability to regulate or audit it.

And this isn't some unheard-of position.  It's literally the position of the CCP.  There are tons of American apps that don't operate in China because of Chinese rules, or like Google they make special China-specific versions that China can audit/regulate.  Now that's not saying we should become the People's Republic of America.  Unlike China, we have a first amendment that lets us say whatever we please.  But that first amendment doesn't give foreign enemy states the right to collect unlimited data on Americans with zero accountability or regulation!

I'm struggling to understand the distinction that you're drawing when it comes to regulation. The federal government has no way to "audit" the algorithms used on platforms owned by publicly traded companies like Meta or Alphabet, let alone privately held ones like X. These organizations have made changes to both their feeds and their advertising policies in response to political pressure from various quarters (regulators, consumers, shareholders - if applicable), but that's also true of ByteDance.

By the same token, if TikTok's data collection practices are a national security risk, then the business models of many tech companies are a systematic national security risk (to the point that any regulation strong enough to control this would destroy their revenue models), because the mere existence of large quantities of data describing the behaviors and beliefs of Americans represents a vulnerability. Cyberattacks routinely tap into even our most sensitive data (e.g. electronic medical records), and much of it is available, legally, in one form or another, on the open market. Is there some more specific subset of data that you're worried about?

I also don't see how "what would the CCP do?" is a relevant question. This is a polity with different values, a different history, and different regulatory framework. In the United States, we value freedom of speech, economic competition, diversity of thought, and rule of law. The people responsible for settings China's tech policies are committed not just to a different set of interest, but a different set of values.

If we decide that TikTok is equivalent to "the Entertainment" from Infinite Jest, and needs to be targeted for elimination by government fiat, we are saying that our core values are flawed, that speech is really something like hard drugs where certain forms are too dangerous for the average person to risk engaging with it, that we need some overseer who knows better to protect the rest of us from the inevitable social corrosion and systemic risk that these forms of speech create, and that specific companies should be targeted by the government to protect the market share of domestic competitors with our preferred politics.

Finally, I don't use social media, but from what I see of its users, the people using TikTok don't seem any more poorly informed than avid users of YouTube, X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram/Threads, Reddit, or LinkedIn. Maybe there's data proving otherwise, but this seems like an assertion made mostly on the basis of the platform's extremely young user base and a few high profile stories about viral misinformation. The other platforms don't have this under control either, and to the extent that some of them do it's largely because they have chosen to suppress news-related content altogether.

[brucejoel99]

Y’all realize this doesn’t “ban” tik tok but would force it to be sold to an American company

I believe it does ban it if not sold by 6 months after passage.

Yea and is a massive social media platform. I’d be shocked if that doesn’t happen

I'm not so sure. A court will probably put an injunction on it as happened with the Montana ban. And then I imagine it will eventually be overturned. In which case they wouldn't have to sell.

The federal judge who overturned the Montana ban implied a congressional ban would pass 1A intermediate scrutiny (being allowed as Congress to pass foreign relations laws) so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://twitter.com/lawfare/status/1765818171796197752

When it comes to a federal ban, Molloy's reasoning would not help TikTok. First, the bill of attainder argument would again be rejected. Second, neither the preemption nor Dormant Commerce Clause argument would be applicable in the federal context, leaving only the First Amendment analysis. When it comes to First Amendment analysis, virtually none of Molloy's intermediate scrutiny analysis would likely hinder a federal ban.

On the first prong, the federal government is likely to focus on two important government interests. The first, and most important, is the national security rationale. National security is irrefutably an important government interest at the federal level, in contrast to at the state level, where it is of lesser direct concern. Indeed, national security is generally considered the preeminent federal government interest, and courts give the federal government substantial deference on national security matters. For example, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the Supreme Court sustained a federal statute criminalizing speech-related support to terrorist organizations, such as legal services and advice. Notably, the Court applied a more stringent scrutiny than Judge Molloy, because the statute was content based. Nonetheless, the Court deferred to congressional and executive factual findings, as the case "implicate[d] sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs." While the Court held that it does not "defer to the Government's reading of the First Amendment, even when such interests are at stake, ... when it comes to collecting evidence and drawing factual inferences in this area ... respect for the Government's conclusions is appropriate." Therefore, the Justice Department would likely fare far better in federal litigation than Montana.

A similar argument involves federal elections. While the First Amendment protects Americans' access to foreign propaganda, the United States has an important interest in limiting foreign influence in elections. In Bluman v. FEC (2011), then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh upheld the total ban on foreign persons engaging in election spending in the United States. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed, so its outcome carries precedential weight. Following Citizens United v. FEC (2010), Bluman recognized that election spending was protected First Amendment speech and notably applied strict scrutiny. Nonetheless, the Court held that "the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis," that is, even greater than the "important" interest required under intermediate scrutiny, "in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process."

Given the U.S. intelligence community assessment in 2022, which purports "high confidence" that China seeks to influence U.S. elections by supporting pro-China candidates and opposing anti-China candidates, the State Department's public finding that China uses ByteDance's control of TikTok to censor globally, and an independent study from December 2023 showing that the prevalence of content on TikTok aligns with the CCP's geopolitical goals, this is another argument available to the federal government that was unavailable to Montana. Therefore, under Judge Molloy's intermediate scrutiny, the United States will likely be able to point to important government interests that would get a high degree of deference and satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

On the tailoring prong—whether the TikTok ban burdens substantially more speech than necessary—the federal government once again has a key argument unavailable to Montana. In particular, the federal government can argue that two presidential administrations, of different parties, over several years, concluded there was no mitigation agreement with TikTok that would resolve the national security concerns it posed. For TikTok to prevail on this prong, a federal court would have to decide that, despite the deference usually shown to the federal government in national security matters and despite the interagency consensus to the contrary, there is actually a way to solve the national security concerns short of a federal ban or ByteDance's divestment. Under Molloy's intermediate scrutiny, instead of having to show that the statute was the "least restrictive means," the federal government would merely have to show that there was no other way of satisfying the government's interests that did not burden substantially less speech. The federal government would, thus, probably be able to satisfy the narrow tailoring prong under Molloy's reasoning.

If TikTok wants to roll the dice on Kav's kids pestering him to reverse himself, & Roberts & ACB's kids pestering them to join him, Ig that worked out so well for them in Congress!

[All Along The Watchtower]

Y’all realize this doesn’t “ban” tik tok but would force it to be sold to an American company

It is concerning how crassly protectionist the US has become in the name of “security.”  This applies to many issues (notably immigration), not just social media companies or trade.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Summarized: we must control the narrative.

heatcharger, I do not think that is an accurate summary of my post.

It is. Once you veer into complaining about the type of content on the platform it’s clear you want changes to what Americans are seeing on social media. Most anti-TikTok arguments end up in this direction.

The issue isn't necessarily the type of content (I am not calling for any state control or banning of TruthSocial, for instance), the issue is that it is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.  Even if China was purely using this to inject truth and justice and happiness into our lives, it is still bad for America to give a foreign enemy state such a powerful information tool in the pockets of every American.

The fact that it's actually being used to broadcast harmful misinformation and complete BS, overwhelmingly in service of an anti-American foreign policy agenda that by sheer coincidence just so happens to align with exactly what China wants Americans to believe, is icing on the cake.

Regardless, if you think things like community notes on Twitter are a bad thing, it is most likely because you either have some agenda that is lie-driven and undermined by any sort of added context or fact-checking, or you believe something that deep down you know is false and get very triggered anytime you are faced with reality.

Again, whatever happened to Republicans being strong against China?  I'm old enough to remember four years ago when that was a thing.  Now Republicans are willing to die on the hill of defending the Chinese Communist Party's right to have an unlimited disinformation & propaganda chip plugged into the brain of every single American, and if I think that's bad, it's because I want to "control the narrative."  Whose narrative?  China's?  Why would it even be a bad thing for America to control China's narrative?  Why should we want China's narrative to dominate the American public?

Okay the CCP has our data. Cool? What is the worst they are going to do with it? Meanwhile the US government has in the past spied on us, and the uniparty wants to engage with censorship. Xi and the CCP outplayed the establishment and flipped the script which I think is hilarious. Banning TikTok makes us look more like China - not less.

[DaleCooper]

Yes, the people who are comfortable with China spying on them are bad, but the anti-TikTok crowd has no leg to stand on when their whole argument is basically that stealing, hording, and selling American's personal data should be a whites only industry. The Chinese spying on us and brainwashing us is worse than Zuckerberg doing it, but neither should be allowed to do it.

If the Democrats called for a universal ban on social media companies keeping and selling their users' data, then they'd have near unanimous public support from everyone on all these sh-tty platforms.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1766258633430425692?t=3OaKdnraV47urFWERE2cB...

Has anyone else noticed a softening of the GOP's China rhetoric lately, not just on tiktok but as a whole? Their hardcore anti China stance is one of the few things they were better than Dems on, and they're blowing it.

Even free Republic is now turning against banning TikTok which is weird:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4223110/posts

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4223025/posts

[emailking]

They're turning against it because Trump has now come out against banning it, a change from when he was President.

[GeneralMacArthur]

stealing, hording, and selling American's personal data should be a whites only industry

c'mon man

[GeneralMacArthur]

Okay the CCP has our data. Cool? What is the worst they are going to do with it?

What's the worst they can do with it?  Probably use it to craft the most finely-honed propaganda in human history to try and get Americans:

to advocate for the United States to withdraw from its role as a global leader in trade and security,

to agree that East Asia should be China's imperial domain and that Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other countries in the region should be Chinese vassal states for various historical and political reasons,

to argue in favor of China over America as the world's sole superpower, and more broadly, that China is good and America is bad,

to believe that the Chinese oppressive police state is either an American exaggeration or a totally necessary and good thing that makes life better,

and most importantly, to be totally OK with the fact that China is collecting data about them and using it to manipulate them.


And then, when they invade the neighbor state whose lands and resources they have craved for decades, they will count on their propaganda effort being so strong that the American public will be totally against any sort of American intervention or aid, and ultimately pressure their politicians to cravenly undercut and abandon its ally to Chinese conquest.

I mean, Russia already basically got away with this with the Republican Party, so why shouldn't China try their hand as well?

[DaleCooper]

stealing, hording, and selling American's personal data should be a whites only industry

c'mon man

I was being deliberately provocative there, but listening to skeptics of this legislation, it's very clear that people are angry about the government's indifference towards American tech companies stealing our information and spying on us. Instead of targeting TikTok we could kill the whole problem at once and do it in a way that almost everyone would support.

[American2020]

According to the Global Times.
Carlos Latuff works with China now.

https://twitter.com/serpentza/status/1766567360922890565

[Horus]

They're turning against it because Trump has now come out against banning it, a change from when he was President.

I know, but I'd like to hear them admit it.