this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
524 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59317 readers
4562 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 146 points 6 months ago

Oh no! Anyway...

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 123 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (10 children)

It’s going to be to their advantage to claim that they’re shutting down, even if they actually want that $50B buyout. If they say they’re going to sell, they’re going to lose what little leverage they have left. The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 67 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I read it as a bluff too.

They’re between a rock and a hard place, their best position is to play hardball and rile up their users.

Yeah, it means nothing to us to leave. We’re losing money!

If that were really the case why are they in the US at all? Because they know they can make money and their market position is strong.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Because China is trying to influence the US and they need to be in the US market for that

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The public [who] wants TikTok will get TikTok

In my family and peer group, the people who want to use tiktok and the people who could get and use a VPN to access a side-loaded tiktok app, has no intersect group. It's just a bridge too far for all of them.

I'll push them onto the fediverse yet.

[–] WillySpreadum@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Worst part about Lemmy being a tech heavy space is that so many users spout shit like “They’re not banning it, just deplatforming it” like yes, dipshit, that’s effectively a ban for something like 99% of people. You think 100,000,000 people are gonna fucking sideload the app? Love this place but it can be a bubble sometimes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

Has their user base mobilized at all? Maybe it's just because I don't use TikTok but I haven't really heard much from their users about the ban. Which has been kind of unexpected.

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (10 children)

Apparently TikTok sent out push notifications telling users to call their representatives. Minors were being provided instructions with their representatives' phone numbers and contact info, but didn't even know who they were calling and were asking basic questions like "What is Congress?"

Kind of shows the amount of power TikTok has over American youth.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I love how they demonstrated they aren't influencing people by sending out a mass message telling people what to do. It doesn't get any more comical than that.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 73 points 6 months ago (28 children)

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

Better to force US competition to start from scratch.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Steve@startrek.website 62 points 6 months ago
[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 51 points 6 months ago (4 children)

TikTok's daily active users in the U.S. is also just about 5% of ByteDance's DAUs worldwide, said one of the sources.

So much drama in the US over this but it's apparently merely a money-losing afterthought for its owner.

[–] Album@lemmy.ca 91 points 6 months ago (5 children)

It's almost like making money is not the primary purpose of this website 🤔

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Or ... maybe the US isn't the only country in the world?

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Lmao yeah OK 👍. Name any other country.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

This means absolutely nothing.

How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US. They have shopping, I’ll bet the US buys the most.

China already has livestream shopping, it’s still relatively novel in the US. Bytedance has to compete with other local competitors in China, hating a nice external source of revenue in the US fuelling these Chinese battle is a huge boon.

I know the article says loss making app, but I bet a lot of money goes back to R&D creating the loss. They pay massive sums to get merchants to sell on their app for example.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 22 points 6 months ago (11 children)

This means absolutely nothing. How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US.

To quote the article again, "The U.S. accounted for about 25% of TikTok overall revenues last year, said a separate source with direct knowledge." Honestly, I think that makes the case for shutting it down even stronger. TikTok isn't in some growth-at-all-costs phase in the US. It's likely near its peak potential userbase. If they haven't been able to make it profitable by now, that doesn't bode well for it ever becoming significantly profitable. Absent the legal issues, they think it's still worth at least trying, but as it stands, it's just a lot of money in and, just as quickly, out, with nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nao@sh.itjust.works 39 points 6 months ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Buttons@programming.dev 38 points 6 months ago (10 children)

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

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

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (7 children)

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

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

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

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

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lud@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 37 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

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

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

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

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

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 53 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 29 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So be it. The vaccuum it will leave will get filled by another platform.

[–] xnx@slrpnk.net 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The whole point of this bill is for mark zuckerberg’s lobbying money to finally get people to use Reels

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SirEDCaLot 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is obviously a negotiation tactic.

If ByteDance doesn't want to sell their stupid algorithm, they could simply rip it out of TikTok, replace it with a random number generator or any other off-the-shelf recommendation engine, and proceed with the sale.

Find their lowest paid summer intern from the university computer science department, tell him to write some sort of recommendation algorithm and he has two weeks to do it, then whatever he comes up with make it live and that's all the new owner gets.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I doubt the recommendation algorithm is particularly special, the userbase is the more important thing IMO. However, any purchaser would need to implement something decent if they want to maintain that userbase.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xnx@slrpnk.net 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] elrik@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Good. Please proceed as quickly as possible.

[–] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Don't threaten us with a good time!

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

That's fine, but I think they are lying.

And in case you don't understand, foreign corporations running FARA-unregistered influence operations isn't considered a facet of "free speech" in the USA.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

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

[–] ObsidianZed@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

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

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

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

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

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

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›