This is the real story IMO. The government has no business telling people they can't use certain apps for their speech. What's next? Apps which support encryption? Apps which don't support whoever the current political party is? You want Donald Trump or Joe Biden in charge of which apps you're allowed to use, really?
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
57 points (89.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7065 readers
536 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Huh. I hadn't considered that. I dislike the platform and liked the idea of it being blocked, but I hadn't considered it as a limitation of free speech.
Begrudgingly, this changes my opinion.
My issue is with information flowing to the Chinese government.
I understand that in the United States that information drain has been discontinued(as much as any American app discontinues information drain) but the fact that a few years ago, personal information was going straight from TikTok to the Chinese government who is actively seeking that information, and the app TikTok came from, douyin, still sends information to the Chinese government today like this is enough to give me pause.
To me, it's not the same as Facebook or Instagram or whatever getting banned because of that direct and recent connection to the Chinese government.
If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?
They mention tiktok a lot but the text of the bill reads "any foreign adversary controlled applications." So I think it is more broad.
Not really. They word it like that because laws need to look broad, but the purpose is to target TikTok.
One thing I'm absolutely worried about is the definition of "adversary" is too broad, and it could potentially be broadened to include any foreign country that doesn't do whatever the US wants.
The "purpose" is to target TikTok, sure. But that doesn't really matter as it could be used to enforce laws against any other company / country doing something similar. Laws are often used beyond the original intent.
Though if it's not written broadly enough I believe it could be ruled unconstitutional.
Yeah, I'm not Constitutional lawyer, but that's my impression as well. I'm guessing they'll just adjust the definition of "adversary" to match their political aims though.
That's been my position as well. I absolutely detest TikTok, refuse to use it, and consistently tell others to avoid it, but I cannot agree to banning it. People should be free to use what they want.
That said, it should be banned for government employees on government devices and on government networks (and perhaps on government property as well). That's not a free speech issue, it's a policy of the government as an employer, and government employees should absolutely be free to use it on personal devices.
If TikTok is free speech then why can one get banned for speaking freely on it?
That's an excellent question because people completely misunderstand freedom of speech. The law is freedom of speech from government persecution. Which is literally what banning Tik Tok is. It's the government persecuting a company for being Chinese.
What the law does not protect is private persecution. If you come to my house and announce you're a pedo, I can kick you out of my house for that. Just like tik tok can ban you.
The law is freedom of speech from government persecution. Which is literally what banning Tik Tok is.
Except that's not what this bill is. It's about banning certain apps and websites which are under the control of an adversarial government. The speech is fine, but the platform moderating that speech isn't, and the 1st Amendment doesn't protect foreign entities. The Supreme Court upheld in Bluman v. Fed. Election Commission that limits on foreign entities' speech can be greater than what would be constitutional for US citizens. And this isn't even about speech, it's about the platform of that speech.
It's the government persecuting a company for being Chinese.
True, but only if "Chinese" means "operated in part by the Chinese government/CCP." This isn't about the the race or ethnicity; it's about the government.
We have similar bans in place for other constitutionally-protected activities involving other countries. Import of Russian firearms and ammo is banned despite the right to keep and bear arms.
What the law does not protect is private persecution. If you come to my house and announce you're a pedo, I can kick you out of my house for that. Just like tik tok can ban you.
You can kick them out for any reason because they dont have the right to be on your property. This article is touting that the bill is an attack on free speech as a right, but TikTok and other social media platforms are not examples of free speech. Instead, this bill is about limiting the ability of foreign powers to control the spread of information in the US, similar to how we already limit the ability of foreign powers to finance our elections.
Actually that's not correct. Media isn't like other products, it's protected speech. This is why even though we've sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.
This is why this "ban" isn't a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn't block Tik Tok or it's website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores. So if they don't divest, you could still go to their website and download their app. With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you'll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.
So what's all this really about? Propaganda and showmanship. They're just pushing a China bad narrative as realistically our 1A laws prevent them from doing anything actually effective here.
Actually that's not correct. Media isn't like other products, it's protected speech. This is why even though we've sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.
Yes, while speech is protected, but the platform's operations, websites, and apps are not. No foreign entity has a legal right to operate commercially in the United States. We've had sanctions and tariffs for years. 1A applies to free speech of Americans.
This is why this "ban" isn't a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn't block Tik Tok or it's website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores.
Not true. Read the bill. Websites are addressed.
With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you'll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.
Not relevant to USA because Apple could allow this only in the EU. And not applicable because websites are covered by the bill.
Yes, they can't operate the website in USA so they'll operate it in Canada and Mexico. And yes, that's why they're targeting the stores and not the site, because the only thing they can do is prevent operations inside the country but they cannot block access to it.
Finally, of course technically Apple could only allow EU to do this, but much like their transition to USB-C it would be weird if they did that. ESPECIALLY since having Tik Tok on their phones would be a benefit to them, not a negative.
*Edit: Also I was defining free speech in my initial post, which you seem to agree with. I was not trying to define this abhorrent loophole of a bill that bans but doesn't ban because of 1A Tik Tok. And if you don't understand why the government trying to loophole out of the constitution is bad, well I have no words.
that's not the point... any private company can ban you, but the government shouldn't be able to stifle your speech.
If this is about banning a platform that can ban you, then it isn't about banning free speech. Just because speech exists on TikTok does not make it a platform for free speech.
The 1st Amendment recognizes the right to free speech in the USA. It does not recognize the right for a foreign entity to operate a restricted speech platform. The government is not stifling your speech here.
And, this bill isn't even all about the "speech" aspects of TikTok. The other aspect of it is that this gives the government the ability to block the app by declaring that TikTok is straight up malware, collecting all the data it can on you and sending it to servers outside the regulatory power of the US. Apple and Google won't ban TikTok because it's too profitable, but the app is malware.
Would you get treatment for cancer if you knew you had it? Because this trojan horse is cancer for our democracy
I'd have more respect for the USA if it just dropped it's pretense of supporting absolute freedom of speech. In theory, spreading Chinese and Russian propaganda should be protected under free speech, but the US government is clearly not willing to allow it.
I keep hearing that the US government is trying to ban TikTok. That just ain't happening, but forcing it to divest from Bytedance is much more realistic. And that's exactly what should happen.
TikTok is the primary news source for a lot of young people. The algorithms absolutely could be controlled by the CCP. The ability to amplify fringe beliefs is a power Xi should not have over us.
That just ain’t happening, but forcing it to divest from Bytedance is much more realistic. And that’s exactly what should happen.
A quick read through the first bill, HR 7521: "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act", shows that they explicitly call out divesting as an option. If ByteDance would rather shut down than sell, that's their call.
If Bytedance shutters TikTok, a multi-billion dollar operation, that's proof positive they are hiding some heinous shit.
I wouldn't quite go that far. ByteDance would be balancing shuttering TikTok in the US with selling it off worldwide, likely at a reduced price. Then there's the Chinese TikTok equivalent that ByteDance owns that seems to run off the same code base. They would certainly want to retain that. The US has the largest user base, but it might be the best business decision to not sell off TikTok. It still has potential elsewhere.
What I don't get is that they wanted to have the most public system of any social media company. The proposal included an independent audit board, compromised of industry and government officials that could audit the code at any given time and would be forced to do periodic audits. AFAIK bytedance was completely on board with the proposal, but then it just gets scrapped and then they say the only thing they want is a ban and resale.
So it's clearly not about the CCP changing algorithms to promote progaganda... it's about the US governments current inability to change the algorithms to promote their propaganda. Otherwise having everything out in the daylight would solve the whole CCP problem, it just wasn't the problem.
Honestly, I just can't muster any sympathy here. A Chinese company is getting manhandled by the US government in the same way China has been treating foreign companies for years. China wouldn't let a company be in the same position if the US government literally had a position on its board of directors, but that is exactly the case with TikTok. Fair is fair.