Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm a big proponent of free speech and the first amendment, but I agree with the reasonings for banning it or forcing US owners.

China most definitely has their hands in the data that TikTok amasses and given its popularity it's not an insignificant risk to U.S. citizens. We all know how easy it is to manipulate users... aka Cambridge Analytica.

It'll be interesting to see what legal challenges come up if the bill passes the senate because that is where the real discussion will occur. I ultimately see it being reversed, but I can also see a solid framework for future bills being illuminated via the courts.




Why shouldn’t Europeans do the same with US social networks then?


If they feel their relationship with the US is similar to the US's relationship with China in the relevant ways, then they absolutely should do the same. My understanding is that they don't feel that way, generally speaking.

They do in fact impose less extreme controls on data from these platforms, that lesser extremity presumably reflecting their lesser perception of the US's use of that data as highly dangerous, as compared to the US's perception of China.


>My understanding is that they don't feel that way, generally speaking.

US tech companies currently getting slapped around with large fines in the EU for similar infringements of privacy etc.


That is a much lesser punishment than what the US is doing in this thread. A fine that is a small but non-insignficant percentage of annual revenue is a measured response when you want to punish bad behavior but allow businesses to still operate within the jurisdiction.

Restricting business operation altogether is a response a country gives when they see the other party as extremely adversarial, which is a few orders of magnitude above what EU fines are to Big Tech.

Big difference


> Why shouldn’t Europeans do the same with US social networks then?

We’re not your foreign adversary? (If we are, we shouldn’t have an obligation to defend you.)

This bill permits TikTok’s sale to a European owner. It just bans its ownership by a foreign adversary country.


You're not a foreign adversary - you're a colonial overlord. If a European or other US 'ally' nation attempts to act against American 'national interest' their government is swiftly toppled - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...

More often they don't get elected at all due to coordinated media campaigns influencing elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_K...

The US Army literally have an entire army unit dedicated to running propaganda campaigns on social networks internationally. It's ludicrous to suggest this isn't employed to impact political and social policy in 'friendly' nations. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...

That being said, there are worse things than Pax Americana. I'd certainly rather living under US influence than CCP. I'd be the first to argue that NATO has prevented another war in Europe. But lets not deny the reality on the ground.


You're making some extremely strong claims, with minimal evidence. I don't deny that the CIA can be pretty nasty to 2nd and 3rd world governments, but claiming the US is a "colonial overlord" over our European allies is just not true. The first priority of our European allies is domestic politics; just like us, everyone wants to get re-elected. Sometimes domestic politics push countries towards the US, sometimes they pull them away. Countries like Hungary and Turkey make diplomatic trouble for the US, and we don't launch coups against them. The US would love it if Germany built up a decent military, but Germany isn't because the political will just isn't there. Between the 60s and the 90s, France literally left NATO. Europe in general has been extremely slow to scale up artillery production to support Ukraine (the US has been better, although but not by much); if the US had as much power over Europe as you think we do, we would have just told Europe to up production and they would have. But this did not happen.


Gangs also offer to "defend" local businesses from other gangs.


And friends offer to help friends. Enough of this nefariousness.


I am afraid there are no such thing as "friends" when it comes to international politics...


[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


You broke the site guidelines extremely badly in this thread—way over the line at which we ban accounts. Moreover, you've been doing it in other threads too - e.g.:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39682943

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39636608

and we've already asked you once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39362247.

I'm not going to ban you right now but we need you to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and start following the rules strictly. No more personal attacks, especially.


You, sir, are a linguist [1]!

[1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2518


You also broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread, including with personal attacks. I know the other commenter was being provocative, but it's not ok to post the way you did in response.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Note this one:

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."


You’re right. Sorry. Didn’t realise the original accusation hit a nerve—that’s on me. (Thank you.)


Not Europe, but around 2015, Russia passed a law requiring foreign companies to store data on servers in the country. Then banned LinkedIn in 2016 [0], and tried to get Twitter and Facebook to comply in 2017-2019 [1]. All of which were met with ridicule from many people in the US (IIRC from article comments and reddit).

IMO, somewhat similar situations - popular social media, known for data gathering, based in another country that is viewed as a geopolitical and/or ideological opponent and is often villified.

0: https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/technology/russia-linkedin-...

1: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/russia-tries-to-...


1) wouldn't blame them if they did 2) we are in this military alliance called NATO; if you are depending on each other for military help, you're not thinking about social media based threats


[flagged]



Also, literally the Nazis. We lost over 400,000 people helping free Europe from the last lot who tried consolidating control. Pax Americana has been one of the longest stretches of peace in Europe. Vaccines and peace…


A lot of those Nazis went on to become part of the government of West Germany. And now Germany's in NATO. Now, their far right wing party is on the rise. The Nazis lost WWII, but fascism won.


I'm under the impression they already do. There are lots of data collection rules that US companies have to follow. This I see as an alternative to outright banning. I'm sure Facebook, et. al. are audited by EU agencies to make sure they are in compliance.

I think the reason for the outright ban is more due to it being a Chinese product. China isn't known to be very transparent.


There has been a lot of attempts with multiple iterations (see https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates...).

Sadly European intelligence services actually want US to spy on their citizen in order to gain access to the data legally.


They should, and viewed in a certain light that is what the GPDR and DMA are trying to achieve— make room for native companies.


Not necessarily making room for native companies, as the Silicon Valley giants have adapted. But they enforce certain rights, for example privacy, and if US companies (not just social media) do not want to comply they are forced to leave the EU. Some newspaper websites are not visible from Europe for that reason.


They're welcome to if they think it's worthwhile.


Europe is concerned about the influence and data-collection of American tech companies, and would be fully justified in doing something similar.


If they feel there is a sufficient security threat posed by US based social media/apps, then I see no reason why they shouldn't.

But its pretty clear that the security threat posed by US based services vs certain others is starkly different, especially since the US is generally seen as a beneficial/friendly state.


The US legislation applying to TikTok specifically applies to companies that are considered foreign adversaries. As far as I'm aware, with the exception of possibly Russia and Belarus, the US is not considered to be a foreign adversary by European nations.


OP wasn't arguing that.


They should and I wish they would!


We totally should to be honest, the social network is the most harmful tech of all time, from various spectrums.


[flagged]


> EU is fundamentally an American colony that has neither the economic power nor the political power to stand up to their colonizer in such a way

This is like arguing Europe was colonised by Britain when they helped the continent repel Napoleon.


> The EU is fundamentally an American colony

Oh how the tables have turned


I can't imagine who would genuinely ask this- and it's suspiciously plastered in every single thread on this topic. Think hard! In which way is Europe and the US's relationship different than China and the US's relationship?


> China most definitely has their hands in the data that TikTok amasses and given its popularity it's not an insignificant risk to U.S. citizens.

At least according to their website, it seems like US data does not leave US data warehouses: https://usds.tiktok.com/our-approach-to-keeping-u-s-data-sec...

I don’t know the details of course but if China wants the data there are umpteen companies who engage in data brokerage and can get the info they want.

I’m not for or against this bill, but it seems like really the issue is data collection in general, which obviously the Congress has no interest in regulating.


That page does say data does not leave the US.

minimizing employee access to U.S. user data and minimizing data transfers across regions – including to China.

It is "minimized", or in other words, accessible from China.


Even if data doesn’t leave US, we want to avoid algorithmic manipulation via TikTok feed.


This logic is not going to hold up in court. You cannot ban access to propaganda in the US.


This isn't about regulating what content American citizens are creating. It's about regulating the involvement of adversarial foreign governments to distribute that information. These are quite separate concerns.


>regulating the involvement of adversarial foreign governments to distribute that information

How is that any different than say Press TV, whose website and media are not banned and are freely viewable in the US because we have freedom of expression?


If TikTok is propaganda, they have to register as foreign agent, which they haven’t, so that will make them illegal.

However, I don’t see them being propaganda yet, but technically they can be overnight by download a new model from headquarter (and even without US user data leave US soil). The bill is trying to stop that possibility.

I don’t feel it morally sound to punish someone for sth they haven’t done yet. But what do I know? Reading many here and on Ars, most are actually thinking the two country are at war, so they can do anything to each other

I don’t think we are at war, but if enough people believe that way, does it matter?


Distributing propaganda in the US, even as a foreign country, is allowed by the 1st Amendment. Americans have a right to receive information. This bill is trying to stop something Americans have a right to


Yeah it’s sickening how the CCP is able to push their hoof cleaning agenda on americans /s


It's not a push. It's a pull.

Americans are ejecting to get this information. You have to download software, optionally allow it to send you notifications, the purposefully open and interact with it.

It's rational consumption. Simple as.

Edit: I now realize what /s means.


You just justified legalizing all drugs, even harmful ones. And of course let me guess you want harmful drugs to be legal only in the US.


Your account has been using HN primarily for political battle and flamewar. You've also been breaking the site guidelines regularly in other ways.

We ban accounts that do this. It's not what HN is for, and destroys what it is for. I don't want to ban you because your account has been around a long time, but we need this to stop.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Edit: this has been a problem for a long time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35777673 (May 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23752945 (July 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331270 (May 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19350549 (March 2019)


Is there a way to download all my data?


It's digital crack. My mind melts when I see what's going on there (American social media too though).

Surely letting someone make your populace addicted and/or stupid is problematic? In a way I consider it China's late payback for the opium wars.


If you know your mind melts when you see it, then why consume it? Why install it at all?

There are plenty of companies that offer digital crack: video games, porn, social media (including this site). But we must give agency to humans. We must acknowledge that they make decisions voluntarily.

Regardless of the source, either we should regulate data, including streaming videos of all kinds, or we don't. Singling out a company seems like a political stunt with zero real world impact. And a bad policy at that.


> If you know your mind melts when you see it, then why consume it? Why install it at all?

For the record, I don't and never have. Occasionally something leaks through to me, including epiphenomena like this discussion. HN can be stressful at times too, but it's still somewhat useful and it'll be the final thing of this sort for me, should it ever kick the bucket (hope not, though).

> We must acknowledge that they make decisions voluntarily.

There's considerable behavioral determinism when exposing a population to addictive substances and propaganda. Modern neuroscience has basically killed the myth of free will. From an adversary's perspective this is awesome. From a profiteering actor's (corporations, drug cartels, influencers, casinos) perspective this is awesome as well. Would you like some sauce with this social capital?

> Regardless of the source, either we should regulate data, including streaming videos of all kinds, or we don't. Singling out a company seems like a political stunt with zero real world impact.

Sure, for all I care we can pull the plug on all of them and be better off. The systems we had for scientific, journalistic or cultural innovation and dissemination were sufficient and much better behaved (private TV can go as well). No more "professional" streamers (haha). No more perpetual reinserting the same recycled info into the collective goldfish's mind.

This would also abolish the "need" for storing the 86263961826th minecraft let's play, freeing up exabytes of storage space in the process.

Small online communities, that can actually (federatively?) host and moderate themselves will survive as they have before the maelstrom.


I think there's probably no way we can trust the data isn't going to China. This is China we're talking about.

But I don't even think the real problem is videos of high school girls doing choreographed dances going to China. The problem is psyops and disinformation. I think it's much more likely TikTok could be, and probably has been, used to sow political discord. It's not hard to imagine the Chinese government "suggesting" to TikTok that they alter their algorithm to promote content that, say, discourages people from voting, or promoting political violence, or eschewing vaccinations.


Funnily enough, this is why I prefer Chinese devices and apps as a Westerner living in the West. My threat vector is my local security apparatus coercing my data or my devices. Correspondingly, If I were living in China, I'd consider it safer to use Western tech. Meanwhile, I don't really care what China does with my stuff while I'm not in China, I just hope that China doesn't collude with my local authorities.


It's not what China does with your specific information but what it does with the aggregate and how it can manipulate that aggregate.


What happens to your argument if you consider that Western actors can manipulate you the same as China? Even more so, given that they have more power over you (presuming you're based in the West).


My argument isn't assuming there is no manipulation from the West and as someone who lives in the West, I'd rather to have one less avenue for manipulation.


Would be interesting to know if there is any data regarding the degree of cooperation between hostile countries. If I use two VPNs from countries who hate each other am I completely untrackable?


And this is how your fridge sent spam emails and your thermometer took part in a DDoS attack.


Haha, thanks for the chuckle.


If you truly believe in the principles of free speech, no matter how offensive and evil and cynically motivated, then the logical conclusion of that belief is that adversarial foreign governments have the right to propagandize in America and to Americans. If you abandon your principles the moment someone invokes the foreign menace then you don’t really have principles.

People like to think of themselves as being pro-freedom because it’s hip and cool and they are brainwashed from a young age to be proud to live in “the land of the free” but the moments you interrogate those beliefs a little they start to fall apart. It’s more of a political aesthetic than a true belief system.


I don’t think freedom of speech should be given to any collective. Individuals should enjoy it as an absolute right, but a corporation is a legal construct undeserving of such natural rights.

A similar example, people should be able to freely assemble, corporations should not be able to form cartels.


Freedom of speech isn't a blanket everything-goes. The government can impose time and place restrictions on where and when you can express yourself. So to me, getting rid of TikTok is restricting place. You can very well express yourself on other platforms if TikTok is removed from the U.S. marketplace.


> If you truly believe in the principles of free speech, no matter how offensive and evil and cynically motivated (...)

No, nobody truly believes that. Whoever is trying to sell that is trying to manipulate you. We have exceptions, provisions and considerable case law which adds a lot of *) to the first amendment. The 'principles' you're referring to have never actually been a thing outside of political emotional speeches and Republican rallies.

None of us have been alive when America was in a hot war to see exactly how far free speech stretches when actual lives are at stake. We're in a cold war right now and people should adjust their expectations. I'm not shedding any tears when a foreign corporation has its 'free speech' rights restricted. If it wants free speech it should move to the USA.


The fact that Facebook and Twitter were US-owned companies did nothing to stop Cambridge Analytica.


> We all know how easy it is to manipulate users... aka Cambridge Analytica.

There is little to no evidence that CA was able to manipulate anyone other than gullible campaign managers. And frankly the idea that a list of pages someone liked could be used to create a skeleton key that turned people into Republican voters is... far-fetched.



> We all know how easy it is to manipulate users... aka Cambridge Analytica.

There is little to no evidence that CA was able to manipulate anyone other than gullible campaign managers. And frankly the idea that a list of pages someone liked could be used to create a skeleton key that turned people into Republican voters is... far-fetched.

Similarly, I haven't seen anyone actually articulate what the risk from TikTok actually is. They will eavesdrop on users? App store review is supposed to catch that. Promote videos about controversial topics to users? That's cable news. See what videos you have watched or liked? Doesn't seem like a big risk...


> Similarly, I haven't seen anyone actually articulate what the risk from TikTok is.

Profiling of a large population, you put them in cohorts, and slowly shift what you show to these cohorts (based on their preferences, worldviews, etc.) to slowly nudge them into a worldview you'd like. It won't be 100% effective but it can definitely shift perceptions, if each cohort is siloed into their own reality bubbles through what you show them you can stochastically nudge them into a view you want them to hold based on their preferences.

If marketing works even to the people aware of how it works, a concerted effort to use someone's profiling data telling what do they like, dislike, will definitely work on a majority of users.

It's not like it will be blunt, it only has potential if you use this data to slowly shift views by using what's most effective to each cohort, with a large amount of data you can be quite precise in defining these cohorts and using different strategies/tactics for each one depending on what's most effective.

Have you ever worked on anything that did profiling based on accumulated data? I've worked on a few projects back in the early 2010s and even at the time it was scary how much you could infer about your users based on some 100-200 data points collected over a period of 2-5 years. Weaponising that is not the complicated part, the data collection is.


This is fascinating. I think this nuanced approach to shifting the perspectives and beliefs of the population of an adversarial nation is exactly the threat that is being missed by other commentators saying "what does TikTok do that's so bad anyway?" The point is that it is extremely subtle and yet very powerful...if China can convince US citizens that China deserves to rule Taiwan, for instance, the US government may find itself without the popular support or political will to take action to protect Taiwanese democracy in the event of an incursion by China.


>if China can convince US citizens that China deserves to rule Taiwan, for instance, the US government may find itself without the popular support or political will to take action to protect Taiwanese democracy in the event of an incursion by China

What is so awful about the idea that people in the United States might be convinced of something? What does it matter who is doing the convincing? You just don’t like the hypothetical outcome you suggested.

Are you opposed to a Taiwanese propaganda campaign, conducted through a newly popular Taiwanese social media app and directed at convincing U.S. citizens to support Taiwan in the event of an incursion by China? What’s the difference?

I find scary the idea that the U.S. government would try to protect its citizens from anyone’s speech or ideas. The best response to speech you don’t like is to argue forcefully against it; not to suppress it. We can make up our own minds.

I don’t want the government trying to suppress or protect me from thoughts or ideas it thinks are bad.


Because it's 10x harder to debunk bullshit than to claim it. You don't know what you don't know, and unfortunately the majority of people are too lazy to critically evaluate their views. For example, how many people actually read linked articles as opposed to just commenting based on the title?

That's how modern misinformation works, you simply bombard social media networks until the truth is lost in a sea of misinformation.

The difference between the truth and the lie though is that in the end when you actually have to implement policy or predict something, lies tend to eventually collapse in on themselves. Credibility as such emerges for the people/insitutions/frameworks that can consistently predict or give results that reflect reality more. But that can take years or even decades, while gepolitical decisions need to made today.


You might be right, but the existence of a problem doesn’t mean that government intervention will make things better.

I don’t want government deciding, on my behalf, what is or is not bullshit — and then taking legislative steps to suppress ideas it doesn’t like.

Is Communism bullshit? Is anti-Anericanism bullshit? How about liberalism? Conservatism? Homosexuality?

Maybe. But those are for me to decide, based on whatever information people want to use to try and convince me. It is not appropriate for government to legislatively suppress ideas or information it thinks is wrong.

If you think otherwise, do you have a problem with the Chinese internet firewall? From their perspective, China is protecting its citizens from harmful, wrong information. You just disagree about their value judgments. (I assume.)


Yes, it’s cable news. But US has restrictions on foreign owned news.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: