If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.
. . . .
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock
A key question is what emboldened the politicians to propose such bill? It seems the constituents of the law makers have been getting more and more complacent when it comes to giving the government unchecked power, as long as there is a "good" narrative.
Note that EU has made a similar power grab[1]. This means that whatever has emboldened the two is not nation-specific. Now compare this with the recent Schwab's rhetoric on WEF.
It is unequal and unfair and anticompetitive for China to ban hundreds of US based websites and it simply cannot stand for China to have unfettered access to the US web audience.
These are some of the websites banned in China:
Google Facebook Twitte Instagram YouTube WhatsApp Dropbox The New York TimesThe Washington Post Bloomberg News ReutersThe Wall Street Journal BBC Wikipedia (English version) Twitch Vimeo SoundCloud WordPress.com Tumblr Flickr Medium The Guardian Le Monde Deutsche Welle Radio Free Asia Voice of America GitHub Slack Zoom LinkedIn Snapchat Pinterest Quora Netflix Hulu HBO Disney+ ESPN Microsoft Azure Apple iCloud Steam Reddit Imgur Dailymotion Archive.org Amnesty International Human Rights Watch Reporters Without Borders
TikTok is just being used as an excuse to grab power, because this bill will do immeasurably more than allow the government to ban TikTok. It's quite similar to how terrorism was used as an excuse to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act did little to nothing to ensure society's security, but gave the government an immense range of powers that, now more than decades later, have still not been entirely rescinded. And this bill, unlike the Patriot Act, lacks even the pretext of being temporary.
This will also set the stage for even more draconian actions. Obama passing a law allowing for indefinite detention, including of US citizens, without trial or even legal representation [1] would never, in a million years, have been accepted in more sane times. But people lose their mind when the government rallies up enough fear, which is then actively exploited to seize even more powers.
This bill will directly lead to the development of the "Great Firewall of America" as it's the only practical way to engage censorship on the scale that the bill envisages, and it also grants the Secretary endless powers to carry out such. This is a bill is one of the purest embodiments of the absolute decline of America, and everything it, and we, once stood for.
Becoming China is not how you compete against China.
> Becoming China is not how you compete against China.
This proposal is actually substantially worse than the Great Firewall of China. The Chinese government doesn't particularly care if you use VPN's to get around the firewall, because they know that most people won't, and that's enough to meet their main goal, protecting domestic tech companies from competing with established US tech companies. The US is definitely going to be prosecuting individuals for using VPNs to read TeleSUR or whatever, though, because it's about controlling the narrative, not about protecting local industry.
> and that's enough to meet their main goal, protecting domestic tech companies from competing with established US tech companies.
You haven't experienced the GFW if you think that's the main goal. Oh, and please try telling your Chinese friends that "the govt doesn't particularly care about VPNs" and listen to what they yell at you.
Can you show me where it allows this in the actual bill, not a news report?
Because when I read the bill, it appears that penalties only apply to covered entities and covered transactions which are fairly narrowly defined, and don't include individuals accessing content. I question whether something like that could pass constitutional muster anyway.
My read of the text of the bill [1] looks like the intent is to grant the secretary of commerce, in partnership with doj, the ability to review, inspect and prohibit equipment and technology that's used in critical infrastructure or impacts nation security (an overly broad term) which are substantially owned by a foreign adversary.
On it's face, that doesn't seem like a bad thing, but I agree that some of the language is too broad. For example, I think it should require congressional review to deem a country a foreign adversary.
There's also concerning language that exempts all of it from judicial review, which I don't understand - is this even possible?
I've been seeing a lot of reporting on this that is inconsistent with the actual text of the bill. It's hard to tease out the truth of the legislation from the partisan flag carrying.
There's one really tricky clause in there that I also missed on my first pass: "The term “covered transaction” includes ANY OTHER TRANSACTION, the STRUCTURE of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary."
That clause adds a vast amount under the blanket of "covered transactions." At the minimum this would include the usage or offering of VPNs, TOR, or any sort of technology or connection that might be able to circumvent the methods the government will try to use. The "or" in the bill's clause also seems quite meaningful, as it clarifies that offering a service which CAN circumvent the restrictions is just as illegal as offering a service INTENDED to do so.
Beyond that, this thing's a monster of obfuscation. To even begin reading it you need to remove 'weak' OR statements. For one simple example, from Section 3 all the Secretary needs to do to justify 'imposing mitigation measures' against something is to show that it poses an "undue" risk to the "safety of United States persons." The language about national security or critical infrastructure, which you mentioned from the same section, are irrelevant as they're both subsets of 'undue risk to the safety of United States persons.'
> (a) In general.—The Secretary shall identify and refer to the President any covered holding that the Secretary determines, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.
This means the Secretary of Commerce makes a determination about any entity that "poses an undue or unacceptable risk".
Where "covered holding" can be any non-US entity, or any entity "directed or controlled" by a non-US entity, so essentially, every entity but especially foreign entities.
> (1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
So you might think subsection (a) refers to something really terrible, but actually:
> (a) Unlawful acts.—
> (1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under this Act, including any of the unlawful acts described in paragraph (2).
Where "paragraph (2)" goes on to describe every possible technical channel (mobile, LAN, satellite, cable, back-haul networks, etc).
This gives the Secretary of Commerce the ability to say that reading Russian or Chinese news, for example, is unlawful, because it is a risk to national security. If you use a VPN to access that news, you are guilty of this crime.
As long as there's 0 connection to restricted countries, that's probably the case.
But if your work involves logging into Alibaba for procurement or if you're a journalist that reads Weibo or something, you might be a felon, should the Secretary of Commerce recommend you to be.
"The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism", authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.
Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority."
> Today, the full list of actors the U.S. military is fighting or believes itself authorized to fight under the 2001 AUMF is classified and therefore a secret unknown to the American public.
>Becoming China is not how you compete against China.
I don't disagree, but I also don't know what alternative works without weaponizing our own ideals against us. Free speech is wonderful, but, as irrational apes, it can also amplify divisiveness. I worry that the alternative at a technological scale requires a civically engaged and rationally-minded populace, and my optimism is waning. So what do you suggest as a workable alternative?
Treat people as being smarter than you give them credit for, and more able to see through BS. There's a reason scammers try to put time pressure on you - given time, lies are easy to spot.
It’s not just “other people” though; it’s all of us. I think the crux is there is abundant research that shows humans are not particularly rational, but your take seems to assume they are. How do you reconcile those two diverging viewpoints?
Humans aren't necessarily rational, but they are good at social stuff - humans are wired for living in social situations. You only need the latter to give people credit for having a "BS radar."
Do we lump social media into this "social stuff"? Because I think there's mounting evidence that we aren't particularly good at managing it rationally. As I read it, that's really what the article and the law are about: how social media can be leveraged by adversarial actors by leveraging our irrational/unhealthy relationship with it.
Or, alternatively, maybe that's the how the veiled power-grab is being framed. But we'd probably still need to undermine that claim about irrationality to offer an alternative.
I question whether a study can accurately capture rationality in a comparable/aggregateable way between multiple people. Measuring the process used rather than the end result sounds quite challenging.
I expect that what those studies really measure is how well social media users align and agree with the researchers
The alternative theory is almost certainly correct. If you actually read the bill, there is nothing in it about quality of information or misinformation. At the same time, the government has been warning about "malinformation" recently, which they define roughly as "true facts that do not fit the broader narrative." If that definition sounds like something from the soviet union, that's because it is.
The talk about controlling the flow of bad information is a naked power grab, and always has been ever since the first governments tried to do it in the ancient era. What history has taught us is that the truth always catches up eventually, and that it is better to provide people with more information than less. I honestly don't think that the social media era has changed that at all, and it would require some very strong evidence that it did (which is completely lacking).
Remember that before Facebook, news/gossip junkies were subscribing to papers and tabloids of varying quality. We have just eliminated the dead trees. The content was just as bad, emotionally-charged, and false, and there were so many of these papers that you could create a Facebook-style information bubble.
I’ll be more blunt: how do you then undermine the claim that such a bill is necessary due to the irrationality of humans which can be more easily leveraged in the age of social media for bad outcomes?
It seems like you either need to make the case that:
1) humans aren’t irrational or
2) the risk of such irrationality at scale is not really a major risk or
3) social media isn’t uniquely poised to capitalize on that risk or
4) we already have tools capable of mitigating that risk
It sounds like you’re debating 3) but there seems to be some evidence that social media tends to spread “bad” information faster and farther than “good” information by hijacking innate human psychological traits more easily.
I'm suggesting primarily that 3 is true, and we (as individuals in a society which is and has always been full of misinformation) have developed pretty good BS detectors to compensate. Bad information has always been faster to spread than good information. The only difference today is that all information is faster.
Also, to some degree, 1 is fairly true. You see this in economics, for example, where individuals are generally irrational about their choices, but modeling populations as a whole by treating them as 100% rational individuals gives pretty similar results to real life.
>only difference today is that all information is faster.
This is exactly the point being made (although I’m not sure I am completely convinced). The analogy could be “people have always killed each other. Nuclear weapons just make it faster to kill lots of people. Hence there no need to ban nuclear weapons.” The idea being there is a tipping point where the scalability of technology outpaces our biologically evolved innate sense to control it.
I agree with #1 but only in some domains. You can see it with guessing the weight of a bull at a fair or the number of jelly beans in a jar. But there’s other examples where it breaks down. In economics we have bubbles that are destructive when corrected. I’m not sure we want that short term extreme volatility in something like governance.
I think that’s a false dichotomy and not particularly helpful. The question is more about what level of volatility can be tolerate while still maintaining a stable society.
"The election was rigged" is a binary statement that should be resolvable. In 2022[1], when asked about the 2020 US election, more than 25% of US citizens polled thought it was rigged. More than 55% thought it was not. (Some were unsure). Certainly it's not "easy to spot" lies in that basic example.
"Good thing for freedom and democracy" is a bit optimistic.
Suppose 40% of voters think social security should be eliminated, 35% of voters think social security should be saved, and 25% voters vote to save social security because they think lepricons are poisoning babies, and only the social security save party is willing to do something about it.
This would show that social security's future is now now determined by who tells the best lies about lepricons.
Whatever this thing is, I don't think "good" is the right work to describe it.
I believe it to be fair to say all societies rely on some form of trust in others and the institutions setup within to function.
Regardless if it is in a Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, etc.
Regardless of it's means of resource distribution such as capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.
America for example, despite at times in the past having slavery being legal, committing genocide, segregation, the stealing of land, etc.
Despite being majority one religion.
Still expanded the vote. Expanded freedoms. Expanded access to education. And has shown an ability to let people that were previously expected to hide to live out in the open and freely.
If we are going to really take one survey result at one moment in time as gospel to say that American voters can't be trusted seems counter to the examples of the past where despite majority of Americans voters feeling one way, opinions were changed and progress was made. Slowly. Painfully. Yet still some positive direction.
Thanks for reading my rant and I'll leave with one last thing:
The public trust is sadly a fragile thing. When that trust is abused and poisoned by the very elected officials that have sworn to protect it the voters faith in the system becomes erroded. It unfortunately then takes longer and more work to rebuild that trust again. To move back to a society where arguments were made in good faith; not to just to troll or wage culture wars.
Trust is an important word there. In general I think people tend to overestimate the ability of any given entity, let alone individual, to unilaterally influence society. When "revolutionary" action is taken it often tends to be a result of little more than already preexisting sentiment finally reaching a climax. This [1] is a poll of public trust in government, which is a proxy for much of this. The "Trump years" literally don't even cause a notable shift in the trend.
The point I make here is that the issues are more fundamental than e.g. China or Trump or whatever else. We're like flagellants of the ancient times looking to the Heavens for the cause of the plague, while the answer lay somewhat more mundanely on the rats scurrying about their feet. So what IS causing the massive declines in trust? It's no more complex than those fleas, it's the government behaving in an untrustworthy way. The decline started shortly after everything around the assassination of JFK ended up being shrouded in secrecy and lies, which was just the start of a never-ending series of deceitful-looking, if not plainly deceitful, actions.
And now? The en vogue "solution is supposed to be censorship, even more authoritarian levels of social control, and a borderline obsession with making sure people can only access the "right" message, which is little more than a euphemism for propaganda kept at arm's length. Do you genuinely think these sort of things will help improve trust? Look to the countless countries which were able to execute such mechanisms in times of far less externa influence, like the USSR. The government had complete control not only over absolutely all messaging, but even if who could enter or leave the country. And resulted not only in extreme distrust, but a system that predictably collapsed [long] before even reaching its centennial.
Quite simply, if the government wants to regain trust, the best way to do that is to start acting in a transparent and trustworthy fashion. Yet we're going in the exact opposite direction, hard.
This is a very good post, but I think it misses part of the point. You talk exclusively about the erosion of trust between the people and the government. And I agree with your point. But I think the real distinction (and current issue regarding social media) isn’t erosion between the populace and the government, but between the populace and itself. The “othering” and divisive nature of social media, which erodes the “united” in United States.
This bill is only about the external, and a general framework for the establishment of a national firewall. If the government wants to ban all social media, more power to them. It would never pass the 1st amendment, but if it could I'd even support it! But that's tangential, as this bill isn't that.
As for what's causing divides, the one thing I'd observe is that if it were the internet then we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case. Some Western democracies, such as Norway, are even becoming less divided. They have no censorship whatsoever besides a handful of file-sharing sites being blocked, and universal access to the internet. Beyond this there are so many possible, and completely viable, explanations for the divisions in America that I think it turns into a Rorschach test. It's like trying to explain the fall of Rome.
You're right; the bill is aimed at adversarial threats to national security. Social media isn't the end, just the means in this case.
>we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case.
I'm not sure if this premise holds. For one, I think it's missing the nuance about the size and heterogeneity of the U.S. Take, for example, the thesis that the country is more accurately comprised of multiple different dominant sub-cultures.[1] I think when you expand the other Western democracies similarly, we see analagous divisions (see: Brexit).
That wasn't the result of informed opinion but cult-like affiliation. Some politicians work hard to radicalize their voters so that they become almost religiously attached to given ideologies. The principle is that an idea can be changed, but a faith cannot, so once they're hooked they'll fight on behalf of their "god", and call any evidence against as fabricated.
Surely, TikTok's or other Social Media company algorithms could be tricked into provoking cult-like affiliations, even if they didn't actively promote it. And SM actively promoting informed opinions over cult-like affiliations is probably not their goal
That’s central to my point. “well-informed and rational” is beginning to seem like too high of a bar to expect, especially when people deliberately take advantage of that aspect of human nature.
I think there is enough evidence of attempts to rig every single US election in my lifetime (between gerrymandering, voting machine malfunctions (hanging chads), unconstitutional election law changes in some states, organized smear campaigns, burying harmful news stories, etc.) that it's reasonable to say that any of those elections was rigged. I also think that there's no evidence that any of those rigging attempts changed the outcome, so it's reasonable to say that any of those elections were not rigged.
As far as I can tell, the only unreasonable position is that US elections are always completely and perfectly clean. People commit fraud to win county clerk elections - every more significant position almost certainly has some dirty games.
>"So what do you suggest as a workable alternative?"
Do not ever limit freedoms of your own citizens under false pretense of "saving the children". As George Carlin said on this particular subject - fuck the children. Rights supposed to be increasing if you are healthy society.
If you do not like China you can kick them out. You already have enough laws an discretions to do so. There will of course be consequences but that's the price.
I'm inclined to personally agree, but we need to at least acknowledge the counterpoint. That being, in a cliched phrase, that "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact."
Or, in the words of Jefferson, "The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."
That's the claim being made by lawmakers: that certain trade constitutes a threat to national security. I'm not really seeing much debate about that claim.
If I understand your point correctly, you're instead saying we already have the tools to ban TikTok (presumably under commerce laws) and we don't need any other means.
Yes we already have tools to ban TikTok if this is what we need. Instead they want a law which would allow them more and more ways to criminalize our own people. Message to them - GFY.
>"the Constitution isn't a suicide pact."
Acknowledged long time ago - do not yell fire in a cinema example.
100% agree. Power can only be paraded, until it ends up in the wrong hands. Recent examples serve enough where an entire election was sought to be overturned that even simple sources of truth were crucial
> Our freedoms are what make us different from them
Don't the US gov already have the power to arbitrarily sanction and restrict trade with foreign countries? e.g. You cannot sell to nor buy from people in North Korea. Banning all social media platforms from China seem like a vary minor extension of that power.
There's an argument that foreign policy should override domestic politics when dealing with adversarial powers we elect our officials to stand up against. It's not a popular view, because few Americans pay attention to or care about foreign affairs. Under the condition where a foreign power has broadly infiltrated our social systems with a Trojan horse, I think there are rational ways to preserve the First Amendment while targeting the offending social/information virus. This law isn't that, but it probably won't pass and large parts of it would definitely would be struck down by the courts if it did.
Whatever "many people already think," though, it's the responsibility of our government to defend the country from adversaries. That should be done in a way thay doesn't undermine the rights of Americans... but it has to be done or those rights would cease to exist.
TikTok harvesting data and manipulating opinion from a foreign throne is incompatible with having a populace free and unencumbered to make wise and rational decisions to self-govern. Without which all other speech disappears.
That's a weird line to draw though. That stance is basically saying physical products are OK to sanction, but digital products aren't. (Genshin Impact is a lot closer to Beanie Babies than most people would care to admit)
And it's doubly-ironic because TikTok isn't getting banned because of Chinese messaging (that's already allowed everywhere, in all mediums). TikTok is under ban-threat in the US because Americans are using it for American messaging.
It's not meaningfully different than say, Turkey banning Twitter back in 2014 and such.
The medium is important if it is artificially inserting itself to push narratives directed for malicious intent. They aren't banning phone calls from China, or preventing Chinese citizens from posting on American websites. They are banning a specific filter.
What they are doing is establishing the platform for a great firewall of America. What’s the difference between this and oppressive regimes blocking western sites? Who decides what’s next? You’re honestly comfortable with filtering the internet?
I think TikTok users would disagree it’s equivalent to making a phone call, or other sites. It has a specific form that fosters their desired mode of communication. I’ve not seen a specific criminal charge leveled against TikTok, so I assume they’re not doing anything illegal. So, I don’t see how this isn’t suppressing the communications of TikTok users based only on the nationality of their parent company. If they did something illegal, then use the justice system to get redress. Use existing regulatory bodies. Etc. I don’t see the need for a broad based framework for censorship. Even if you won’t agree that this isn’t that this time, it’s most certainly the foundation for it next time. Once you give up freedom of expression on the internet for any reason, you give it up for all reasons.
This isn’t just about speech. It’s about access to markets, stealing technology/IP as a matter of public policy, and Chinese companies functioning as de facto branches of the CCP.
If US social media companies are banned there, their companies should be banned here, etc.
If you GFW off TikTok from the USA — never mind ByteDance's rights: you're violating Americans' rights to view and interact with speech hosted on TikTok. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."
I get what you're saying, but it's ironic that the social media companies argue against free speech on their "private" platforms when they ban or moderate users.
To the article's point, I think the discussion centers around a good definition of "the rules." The case the article makes is that the law uses a deliberately vague definition to wield against any "foreign adversary" (China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.)
I'm not personally against some sort of action in this regard, but would prefer stricter definitions to be applied to avoid abuse of power.
Exactly. For example, imagine if Texas decided it would no longer allow people who have out of state driver’s licenses to drive in the state. All the other states will quickly ban Texas drivers from driving in their states as well. And we are the same country.
In fact, I’d say a ban is at least a decade overdue and our Congress is to blame as usual.
Edit: I mean a ban on social media networks controlled by China PR, not a ban on Texas drivers!
bzzzt look at concealed carry reciprocity, there is no precedent in the US for laws in one state to impact another, and in fact this is a cornerstone of Federalism
I am sorry, but this is written into the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
...only when Federal law overrides State law (this should be obvious)
so in my example, there is no Federal carry reciprocity law, so states can clobber each other at will
likewise, there is no Federal Drivers License, so you get some states that share license info with each other, some that don't...and they aren't compelled
Congress gets to decide what reciprocity states must have. Driver's Licenses are one of those. Every US state must accept every other US state's licenses.
Congress did not decide that concealed carry had reciprocity.
The entire "legalizing gay marriage" argument was if states had to be forced to accept same-sex marriages from other states where it was legal.
Just because China does something to their citizens (denies them access to foreign tech products that they'd otherwise enjoy), doesn't mean its rational for the US to do the same same thing to its own citizens.
Consumers benefit from having access to a globally competitive array of products. Including tech products. I wish Chinese consumers could as well, but just because they don't doesn't mean that US consumers should also suffer.
Just as a nitpik - there are Azure regions in China. But it's complicated.
Microsoft Azure operated by 21Vianet (Azure China) is a physically separated instance of cloud services located in China. It's independently operated and transacted by Shanghai Blue Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. ("21Vianet"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beijing 21Vianet Broadband Data Center Co., Ltd..
The real Azure and AWS is accessible in China, too. In fact, that's the easiest reliable way to bootstrap from "I'm in China and have no censorship-circumvent tools" to accessing the real Internet.
This is just leveraging animosity towards China for access to user communication that would otherwise be protested. This is about access to user information and everything else is of little relevance.
Our freedom is worth more than money. We don’t need to engage in censorship to be just as bad as the other oppressive regimes to stick a thumb in their eye for reducing our revenue from their citizens. Don’t forget, this isn’t banning unsafe toys or imposing tariffs on stress balls, this is banning information and deciding what thought is acceptable based on the nationality of the provider of information.
Do we want to erect the Great Wall in the United States? How technically would we achieve this without enabling broad scale censorship? The law isn’t specific about TikTok - which means it opens the door to broad censorship based on political interest if there controlling party. Is sticking a thumb in chinas eye for reducing Google’s EPS by $0.01/share worth that?
This is not censorship. Deciding what content was allowed on tic tok would be censorship, banning is not that. People are free to view and express themselves on a myriad of other platforms not owned by a horrid adversary currently attacking us from all directions.
Tic Tok has to go, I don’t want people near me using it so China can have a working graph of Americans at all time. They’re already famous for using 0-days in apps. This is just a common sense move I can’t believe any honest tech person would disagree with.
What makes you think this is the only source of that information and that Google and others who also collect this information aren’t providing it to whomever discreetly pays for it? Why is TikTok different than say Zoom? What do you think “China” is going to do with the location of every 13 year old girl? Send targeted kill bots to do something a bomb can do better? Or does it just creep you out that someone other than Google, Facebook, Palantir, and their customers from around the world has such information? Maybe the problem is pervasive spying by anyone?
If TikTok were doing anything criminal I would agree. They aren’t. And if they are there’s already methods of dealing with it. The content and medium of communication and forum of TikTok isn’t available anywhere else. I see this as no different than oppressive regimes everywhere banning Wikipedia, FB, etc. I’m shocked any honest tech person can’t see this is establishing a Great Wall in the US.
Not even close to accurate. Not at all. Wikimedia has been trying to get China to allow a stripped down version of wikipedia in china for close to a decade now. It would be hosted in china and stripped of all political content deemed inappropriate by the CCP, still no.
China does require physical servers in China to operate user-generated-content websites and need staff oncall to censor content 24x7. I don't think wikimedia can do any of that.
Yes it's a stupid totalitarian law but there's that.
China already operate a mirror of wikipedia content, minus anything they decided to censor. As far as I could tell they have a reverse proxy that fetches, censors and serves wikipedia inside the great firewall.
> US companies are allowed to operate social media services in China if they store data locally and follow Chinese law.
I guess the fair approach would be for the US to require Chinese companies' products to be actively and and preemptively censored by the US government. E.g. require the Global Times to publish editorials praising the US if it wants those editorials to be read in the country. Maybe the US should also pass laws to make forced tech transfers from Chinese companies the norm (I guess arguably that is what the whole "sell Tiktok" is really). Seems fair and reciprocal.
That would not be fair and reciprocal unless the US also required US companies to praise the US.
It's not unfair for a company from country X to not be able to operate in country Y because the X company does not want to obey the laws that apply to generally all Y companies.
For example it is not unfair that some foreign financial companies cannot operate in the US because they aren't willing to obey US KYC and tax reporting requirements. It's fair because those KYC and tax reporting requirements also apply to US companies.
It's not unfair that some foreign child car seat manufacturers cannot sell in the US because they have not went through the testing required for regulatory approval. US car seat manufacturers have to go through the same approval process.
A fair and reciprocal move US can do is to require .edu and arxiv.org-likes websites to block China, and deny academic conferences to Chinese nationals.
I'm not sure how you could argue it wouldn't be fair. The US would only be treating Chinese companies like China treats US companies.
> Wouldn't giving American consumers access to what they want be the fairest of all?
No? Not unless China did likewise. What is your definition of fairness?
> Just because there's a wrong in China with their censorship, doesn't mean that adding another wrong in the US make a right.
How is "wrong" for the US to treat Chinese companies the way US companies are treated in China? These are simply trade agreements. Besides if you think what China is doing is wrong, then I hope you'd understand that the US ignoring it _enables_ that wrong.
By your logic, the US shouldn't ban products produced by slave labor. Do you mean to make that argument? If not, what would be different there?
I'm not really a fan of direct open censorship of the US like this so I wouldn't personally support that over a ban either. My main point is just the US can simply act under the principle of trade reciprocity by saying if you don't allow our corporations (including news) operate within your country without undue interference, your corporations don't get to operate in ours. "Undue interference" would be defined by the US (or jointly by the US and China through some negotiation), but it wouldn't be just China that decides since well this is US legislation we're talking about that.
Nothing there would go against the principles of free trade or even free speech really. China would be free to open up if they want to engage in those activities. But if China didn't want that, then it wouldn't mean that the US is somehow acting rashly or wrong by reciprocating economically.
As far as I'm seeing here you're describing the same end result. I'm not going to disagree with you because at the end of the day I only care about that end result.
However I also think this plan will prove way more unwieldy and easy to abuse than a more direct and honest ban that makes it clear China has none of our trust and is recognized as a proper hostile state.
I'm not sure why you're being so argumentative. You and I are largely saying the same thing. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the US to ban the certain Chinese companies (e.g. Tiktok) _until_ China changes its laws and trade practices.
> It is unequal and unfair and anticompetitive for China to ban hundreds of US based websites
I keep seeing this claim posted, and I feel the need to add in some relevant history about why most of the companies on that list aren't doing business in China (tldr; Americans don't want to allow American companies to comply with Chinese laws).
Between the mid and late aughts Google, Facebook, and Twitter were all operating in China. Around this time the Chinese government got very serious about content filtering and imposed new restrictions on what could be shown/uploaded. There was a very strong backlash from the US side that American companies might be helping to build the Great Firewall. Many Americans were outraged and US politicians warned the companies not to build infrastructure that could be used for censorship. So the American companies acquiesced and either left the market or were banned (Twitter).
Reciprocity in trade is important, but it has to be viewed within the context of national laws. American companies had their hands tied and couldn't comply with Chinese law which is why they don't operate anymore. TikTok has so far complied with American laws and spent something on the order of $1 billion USD for a data center in Texas whose only buinsess value was to placate the American government. If enough Americans and lawmakers decide that it's ok for Facebook to build content filters and take down speech critical of the government then there might still be a future for Facebook in China.
I don't think Biden thinks he needs any excuse/positioning as far as the Chinese are concerned. The real issue is here at home in the US - TikTok is insanely popular, and additionally there's a massive amount of overreach in this bill - they want to be able to ban VPN usage etc as well. Biden is not very popular to begin with, and doesn't need to shoot himself in the foot like this. Unfortunately he seems to have talked himself into a bit of a corner.
I was all gung ho with the idea of banning tiktok, I think the national security concern is legit. I really didn't want the PRC to have a finger on the recommendation algorithm for an app that is super popular and is all about getting fed a steady stream of whatever.
Can you elaborate on your definition of 'optimal', especially in the context of the law in the article that is trying to address trade that 'poses an unacceptable risk to national security'?
For example, you probably don’t pick your spouse or decide to have kids based solely on their economic contributions to your life, but are rather trying to optimize across more dimensions, including social considerations.
But maximizing economics does. That’s my point, we shouldn’t create a utility function based on just economics. We often do because it's easy and we're lazy.
All of these sites can be accessed from China using a VPN, and using a VPN in China to access these sites won't result in 20 years of jail time and up to 1000000$ fine
How many of those sites are willing to comply with the same requirements and restrictions that China places on domestic sites (such as heavy censorship, giving the government access to nearly all data they have on their uses, giving the government access to their technology)?
You left out Marxists.org (on that list), which contains the writings of Marx, Lenin and Mao. It was blocked for years and even had DoS attacks on it coming from the PRC.
Unfortunately when it comes to government abuse vs the People, we're like 0-10 at this point. We know the playbook: roll these ridiculous bills out, spark outrage, shift the Overton Window, either kill the bill or amend it, and in 12-36 months roll it out again until the corrupt politicians and the security state behind this stuff win by attrition.
We lost fucking habeus corpus with the NDAA that gets renewed every year! How are we doing with the Patriot Act? Is James Clapper in prison yet? Assange is. It never ends.
How so? I don't follow the logic here. Do you also think that about Snowden? Pre-2013, technologists would laugh at anyone suggesting the NSA was spying on US citizens. There were tinfoil hat jokes and everything. Snowden showed it was not only happening, but was commonplace and operating on a massive scale.
Assange, like Snowden, revealed all sorts of government and military corruption which was directly enabled by things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA. So how did "his actions" make their effects "so much worse?"
I think what people are forgetting is that any law will most likely be tested in the future with intent to abuse it.
People are still in a struggle over single words or even punctuation in the constitution written by people who had no idea there will be cars or Internet or CCTV cameras or abortion pills or AR-15s in the future.
It is not about whether we want or don't want TikTok. It is obviously bad and there is absolutely no good coming out of it. But it is about what other consequences the law will have.
Any law needs to be written thoughtfully and based on principles. Only principles have even a chance to stand the test of time.
> It is obviously bad and there is absolutely no good coming out of it.
arguably untrue. easy to list reasons, however the indomitable one is the breadth of its usage within a free market already qualifies its utility for the masses.
Criminalizing drugs drives producers and users to more potent and compact forms, like opium gave way to heroin which gave way to fentanyl. (Very simplified.)
Opium is bulky.
When the US outlawed alcohol for a while, the market also switched from relatively bulky beer to harder spirits.
---
Aside from that, opium and fentanyl etc obviously have some good aspects, otherwise people wouldn't take them. Duh.
That doesn't mean that the good aspects outweigh the bad aspects in someone else's opinion.
SEC. 11 a (1) "It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate ... any of the unlawful acts described in paragraph"
SEC 11 b (1) "In general.--A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit ... an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not
more than 20 years, or both."
So using a VPN to ATTEMPT to bypass these restrictions can incur up to a $1M fine and 20 years in jail.
You just listed two lines that say "it's illegal to try and break this law", but if the unlawful act is "providing" the service it wouldn't lead to the conclusion in your comment about someone using a vpn to try and access tik tok
It reads to me as more specifically about using than providing, honestly. Context:
Definitions:
> (A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), or any class of such transactions.
> (17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions.
Note this includes "data transmission" and "use of any information and communications technology product or service." And then the law allows the US to:
(a) In general.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines— ... interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election ... or otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.
That's very broad. Note: any risk by any person. Not just by a foreign adversary - this reads to me that if the Secretary of Commerce were to list TikTok on that list of entities, Americans using TikTok services could well fall under fire too. To make it more explicit, in the list of specific unlawful acts:
> No person may engage in any conduct prohibited by or contrary to, or refrain from engaging in any conduct required by any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under this Act.
And the part that makes using a VPN to attempt to evade this itself unlawful:
> No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder.
(Remember from above, a "transaction" includes the use of any software, but even aside from that this uses the wording "or take any other action" - so it's even broader.)
And what's the penalty for this? There's a civil penalty which is (a bit) lighter, but let's just cite one of the criminal penalties:
> IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
So, using a VPN to access TikTok is also a violation. But "aiding or abetting" someone in doing so is also a violation. Would providing a VPN service to access TikTok be considered aiding in this sense? Maybe!
If in response VPN services block their users from accessing TikTok, then VPN users will see these VPN companies for what they really are: just another middle-man in an already MitM'd internet.
Russia is a single party dictatorship, they don't have bills.
The US is a bipartisan, democratic system where members of Congress can draft a proposal for a new law and send it to both the Senate and House for voting.
It's a rigorous process with lost of scrutiny and debate.
As a result the majority of bills, 96% of them actually, get killed before they reach the president's desk.
The other 4% become law only after lots of changes and amendments.
So no, nothing remotely similar to what you have in Russia.
> The US is a bipartisan, democratic system where members of Congress can draft a proposal for a new law and send it to both the Senate and House for voting.
> It's a rigorous process with lost of scrutiny and debate.
Listen, what we have isn't perfect and can be improved, but it's lightyears ahead of whatever """democracy""" russia claims to have. Where in russia can you publicly decry the "you can't badmouth the military" law that was passed during the war? Where can you recall your local politician for voting against your interests? Who can "impeach" putin in russia?
We may suck at using the tools we have available, because americans are apathetic and kinda lazy and often purposely disenfranchised, but the tools are like 80% of the way there.
Can Americans talk about Hunter Biden's laptop? Is Matt Taibbi being targeted by the IRS because of the Twitter Files? Was it permitted to question COVID? Or the vaccines? Is it allowed to question the Russia-Ukraine war narrative and call it a proxy-war? Is it allowed to say that Zelensky is extremely corrupt and simply pocketing all the money? Is it allowed to talk about the Ukrainian nazis?
Are Americans allowed to vote on whether or not to give endless amounts of money to Ukraine?
It's nothing remotely similar to modern Russia, it's more similar to Stalinist USSR, where reading the wrong foreign thing was punishable with imprisonment.
This bill criminalizes access to censured foreign media.
> So no, nothing remotely similar to what you have in Russia.
Correct, it's worse. As of 2023, I don't believe people go to prison, (or get disappeared, shoved out of windows, or end up with terminal cases of polonium poisoning) for reading in Russia.
The bill doesn't criminalize anything, because it is not a law for god sake.
It's a proposal for a law that a small group of lawmakers drafted.
That draft is then reviewed, if it has any merit it goes to the House where needs to be debated, changed and voted, then goes to the Senate to repeat the process, before it can be sent to the president to turn into law.
Some bills are ridiculously bold, that's why very few become law and ZERO of them without lots of amendments.
Bold bills like this one get picked up by the media for obvious reasons, and some people read it like it's an imminent law to be enacted and enforced.
It is important to read them of course and to know who's behind them, because in America we have the opportunity to call our representatives to raise our concerns and complain.
It is not the first bold bill to be drafted and won't be the last one, that's why 96% bills don't go anywhere.
This is how our system works since 1789.
My wife is Russian by the way and grew up in the Soviet Union, so don't be ridiculous saying stuff like this.
You're splitting hairs. We're all aware that bills receive multiple readings. The point is that this will be an utterly horrifying piece of legislature, and in any free society, should never even have gotten a first pass in this state.
> so don't be ridiculous saying stuff like this.
I'll stop saying ridiculous stuff when lawmakers stop putting those ridiculous things into their bills.
Read the bill again and more carefully. It's easy to assume that transactions are financial in nature, but the bill defines data transmission as a transaction.
One doesn't have to be family-centric or female to care about children. This sounds like you consider the aforementioned groups easily manipulated. Not sure if I'm understanding your intended meaning correctly.
Yes, I totally consider the mentioned groups easily manipulated... Not a surprise, given that there is actually hormonal-bonding between parents and their kids. Why do you think they are not special in this regard?
I grew up in authoritarianism and believe me, there's no such thing as "bills" that get debated by a partisan system, voted then (if accepted by both house and senate) passed to the president to sign into law.
In authoritarianism the single party announces and enforces the new law overnight.
I've been enjoying the occasional discussions about the Restrict Act on Coder Radio [0]. Like the EU's chat control it's an insane overreach. Both give powers to government that, when fully executed could and should lead to protests.
At the end of day, isn’t Free Software the solution?
Every issue with power and control of all these big organizations steem from the fact that their software does not respect the 4 freedoms. The west very much likes “free” trade, but how can you have free trade between so many different regulations and so many power disparities?
At least with Free Software, even if you don’t want to trust the entity you are dealing with, at least you can inspect, learn and adapt its software, so that people don’t have a big service disruption.
Free software is important, but it's not a solution to authoritarian laws that restrict people from using any software (free or proprietary) under arbitrary criteria, enforced with heavy penalties.
The only solution to bad legislation is political participation. If you're in the US, call your senators and representative and demand for them to vote against the RESTRICT Act. It takes just a minute or two to contact each congressperson, and it's one of the most practical ways for a person to effect political change. If you don't like to make phone calls, sending each of them an email would still have a higher impact than doing nothing.
Platforms require wide, simultaneous participation by content producers and consumers, which requires popularity, which requires persistent marketing efforts, which requires a mountain of capital. Platforms are much more a business with a brand than it is software.
the issues are trust. not whether you can get users to produce content for it.
edit: someone else mentioned distributed systems, again the point is not these became decentralized or federated or anything like it, the point is them being Free, as in you can see how things are done, it gets harder to perverse the trust. And lets say a bad platform from a foreign entity is shown to compromise your national security, there are multiple options besides just showing the issues, presenting solutions/patches to the problem that troubles your nation, and last case scenario, migration path to the citizens using that service to a in.country managed one. The last one was being tried, having Microsoft/Oracle managing TikTok in the states, would a situation like that become easier with time, had all these platforms been Free Software?
Even if it's free software, if it has more than one million users and unelected official decides it can be somehow associated with US enemies you can go to jail for 20 years for insisting on using it, if this bill becomes a law.
The bill specifically mentions open-source software, and given how broadly an 'entity' is defined, and open source project/library that has contributions from a citizen of a 'adversarial country' and has more than 1MM users could be affected by this bill if directed by the Sec.State or Executive
Section 5(a)(3)(c)
(a) Priority Information And Communications Technology Areas.—In carrying out sections 3 and 4, the Secretary shall prioritize evaluation of—
...
(3) any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including—
...
(C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, *including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software;*
In a vacuum. In practice, these platforms take massive resources to run and improve, and consumers won’t deal with the inconvenience of distributed systems.
Isn't this just an US social media protection act? Meta is getting their asses handed to them by TikTok, so they do the obvious and lobby for banning of the competition
While I’m sure the protectionist aspect was appealing to some legislators and industry players, there really are security concerns with building a country’s communications infrastructure out of components made by a not-very-friendly rival who’s sure to use it for spying in peace times and who knows what in hostile times.
I don't think it's quite the same thing, is it? I mean, Google isn't banned, they just can't/won't fulfill all the demands by the CCP. The end result is the same, but it's the difference between "you're not allowed to open a bar" and "you're not allowed to open a bar without getting a license and obeying the laws".
The problem with TikTok is that it seems to do nothing that domestic US companies don't do, so it's perfectly legal. Outlawing the problematic aspect of social media would essentially destroy Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and severely damage Youtube, so they need to make it a real ban on the company, not the company's practices.
> Outlawing the problematic aspect of social media would essentially destroy Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and severely damage Youtube, so they need to make it a real ban on the company, not the company's practices.
I wonder if we would be okay with removing algorithmic feeds/recommendations. Feeds must either be a chronological order of content or it must be a human editor selected assortment of content. Leave room for algorithmic spam/malware blocking.
I honestly think that leaves Facebooks/Twitter/Reddit/Youtube in operation, although more layoffs might be required.
It would be interesting to see if they'd remain attractive to people if there was no engagement optimization and controversial-first ordering. If you don't get your daily dose of outrage because you've slept while the hot post was submitted and three hours later, it has been pushed down already -- do you not just move on at some point?
As a foreigner and commenting this in good faith ... the country who saw birth Facebook, Google, Instagram... well actually created the Internet as we know it... can't produce an alternative to an app that just shows small videos sorted by an algorithm? What is going on with you guys?
I already consciously decided to ignore Instragram, TikTok and Mutter. I will be a happy tmux user still while the young are already immersed in nausea-provoking VR and AR experiences. Looking forward to being happy by not joingin the crowd.
That came off as more accusatory than I intended. I am not implying a conspiracy/skepticism, but I really thought VICE (for instance) would pick this up before 6 days.
> Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling?
Media circus. The obvious endgame isn’t banning, it’s divestment. This happens all the time with critical infrastructure. We’re getting full-press coverage because it’s a social media asset and China fears are a bipartisan winner.
To the extent this isn’t purely messaging, it would involve a strengthened Cfius. Not the power to randomly ban, but to ban acquisition and investment. (Even this draft bill targets transactions.)
That hearing with the CEO wasn't a good look for TikTok, either. I especially liked the part where he said his kids don't use it. And "Project Texas" sounds like something Jìan-Yáng would come up with in Silicon Valley.
Its more of a time issue for me. I have cut out Discord, forums, twitter, telegram and such because they suck so much time, and I think I can manage HN.
To be fair, the presence of genuine criticism doesn't exclude the possibility of astroturfing. That's sort of the whole point of astroturfing, to attempt to blend in with the grassroots.
You know what the supreme irony is? The China scare (“oh no, totalitarians are coming for us”) is pure manufacturing of consent and its goal is to pass bills that will REDUCE democracy in America.
No, that isn't what astroturfing typically implies. Astroturfing is spreading FUD and misinformation in more automatable or massive ways, which in turn will cause articles to be written that echo these misinterpretations or misinformation.
EFF and ACLU don't exactly have much credibility left in my book, but that is a personal opinion. EFF is still defending Internet Archive in the pirated books scheme. ACLU has retreated from the USA first amendment, which was their main organizational principle. Not exactly a moral high ground anymore.
The FUD here is the overhyped risk of TikTok. Facebook didn't flip the election in 2016, and TikTok can't brainwash you in 2023. TikTok didn't read your mail, steal your bank account, listen to your calls. If it did, let's get Tim Cook to testify about exactly how it happened (it didn't happen).
Everyone who thinks maybe it doesn't have real effects on society has missed to the last 10 or so years.
Even if you aren't, you're some superhuman apparently, you live in a society with millions of people who will very much fall over and will very much end up opposing the future of your country.
Look at healthy misinformation machines managed to turn the republicans from incredibly anti-Russia literally saying they are the biggest threat in the world a couple of election cycles ago, to the party with people calling for us to just hand Ukraine to them
China was implicated not too long ago with meddling in Canada's elections. They are absolutely going to use this advantage on us.
Describing IA as a "pirated books scheme" and the ACLU's case selection guidelines as "retreating from the first amendment" is some pretty heavily weighted language that... I dare say sort of feels like misinformation or misinterpretation. I'm personally not even a big fan of the ACLU but you're really taking an inch and turning it into a mile here which feels kind of unnecessary.
They're not describing IA itself as a "pirated books scheme", they are describing IA's online book lending program for books they didn't have as a "pirated books scheme".
And the ACLU has recently voted to stop protecting the 1st Ammendment rights of those expressing certain hostile opinions relatively recently, so I think that description is quite apt as well.
Neither of these are just my personal hot takes. EFF and IA are far and away on the wrong side of the law here regardless of jurisdiction or interpretation. You can't say that is just my personal "misinformation" when they were just ruled against by a US district judge on the merits of the case:
The law is informed by human morality, they both retreated from upholding the law and in my opinion they lose the moral high ground simultaneously. That isn’t conflating, that’s stating what they did legally and then also stating my moral opinion on the matter
> Joseph Cox from Vice has been paid to be critical of the act
Astroturfing isn’t the right term. Group think seems more appropriate. Cox is writing what will get clicks. (Note that zero lawyers are quoted.) This happens on both sides in any political debate, and of course vested interests, including foreign interests, will throw gasoline on the process. (The EFF and ACLU’s have more merit.)
This exactly is something that I fear...if state level actors had free access to our data and potentially a machine to shape public opinion, we can't expect them to give up at the first sign of resistance. The balance between privacy and security is hard, but it's also necessary here.
You are free not to use TikTok, and free to remove the app from your child's phone (if you have kids), but don't use the Government to tell me I can't use TikTok. This is such hyped up nonsense. We live in such a clown world we are going to end up in a world war over a lip sync app.
There is Astroturfing going on, but I don't know what direction it's going in. There's two separate bills going on[1], and it seems like the worst creatures in Washington are using TikTok as an excuse to severely expand the surveillance state in the bill that's getting all the press, under the guise of "banning TikTok".
This is a messaging bill - a bill designed to tell something to a constituency, rather than to become law. - It is jockeying to cultivate influence. The idiocy contained within the bill itself probably doesn't even have the sincere support of the signatories... If it is politically aggrandizing, then the text doesn't matter too much.
Absolutely, and there is too much horrifying probability behind that. Procedural reform to where that kind of thing isn't as likely or possible would be nice. I've chuckled a few times wondering how well they would all do if they had to use github issues.
If they do try to ban VPNs, it will be just like when they tried to block people from using encryption decades ago. People will do it, they won't be able to enforce it, and the people will win. There's too many VPN users these days for government to stop. Government is not "all powerful".
Thats not the intent here. The only reason for this wording is so if they do happen to catch you for something else, even unrelated, they'll be able yo tack on extra charges after they discover you were using a vpn.
Also if they suspect you of using a vpn, they could get a warrant based on that alone.
If we assume that tiktok is a mass surveillance tool (which at least didn't use to controversial on this site) what alternatives really are there? Using a VPN isn't criminalized, using a VPN to bypass the provisions in the law is.
Just look at vendors on Amazon to see how effective banning by name would be.
The bill is evil, no doubt, but I can't help but think this crap already exists. Our ISPs and internet infrastructure are essentially nationalized for the purpose of spying/information collection. We found this out with Snowden/NSA. Our corrupt intelligence agencies can get any information they want. This just provides the legal backing, more or less retrofitting things. It makes me wonder if this is in preparation for a larger conflict with Russia or other enemies. US needs control of the propaganda mechanism, needs support of the people. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, we just write covert complicated laws now, with bi-partisan support, because both sides get their money from the same people.
Anyone have alternative arguments why TikTok is being banned?
I heard arguments since TikTok doesn’t have public stock that wealthy individuals are losing out. Same with very liberal ideology is on TikTok, with is trying to be controlled.
As other social networks, it is a cesspool of hate and misinformation, damaging to mental health, and can be used to manipulate public opinion very effectively at scale.
> TikTok has admitted that it used its own app to spy on reporters as part of an attempt to track down the journalists’ sources, according to an internal email.
> The data was accessed by employees of ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company and was used to track the reporters’ physical movements. The company’s chief internal auditor Chris Lepitak, who led the team involved in the operation, has been fired, while his China-based manager Song Ye has resigned.
> They looked at IP addresses of journalists who were using the TikTok app in an attempt to learn if they were in the same location as employees suspected of leaking confidential information. The effort, which targeted former BuzzFeed reporter Emily Baker-White and Financial Times reporter Cristina Criddle among other reporters, was unsuccessful, but resulted in at least four members of staff based in both the US and China improperly accessing the data, according to an email from ByteDance general counsel Erich Andersen. All four have been fired. Company officials said they were taking additional steps to protect user data.
---
The corresponding part is that the CCP has a stake in ByteDance and control over a board seat.
TikTok's leadership answers to the CCP. It is a tool for propaganda and psychological warfare against the United States. We're going to ban TikTok for the same reason China banned Facebook, IG, Google, human rights organizations' websites, etc.: as a countermeasure against psychological warfare.
It's true that banning TikTok will also benefit US social media companies. This is similar to how we restrict the manufacture of advanced weaponry to US manufacturers. Yes, this kind of policy creates an advantage for domestic producers. And yes, it also serves important national security interests. Both can be true at the same time.
I dunno. I was listening to a twitter space with a bunch of feds and they brought up an interesting topic. foreign nations are running _very real_ psychological operations on groups and individuals in the USA using modern internet communication and media technologies. Real evil stuff. People have died. People killed themselves, or are now homeless.
not everyone you talk to on the internet is "just like me!" Some of them are weird foreign nationals and they want to extract useful info from you then wreck your life.
People built detectors for GPT texts. If you want to make such accusations, especially casting suspicion on a whole thread, you should back it up with that. Otherwise you're the equivalent of a foreign troll that seeks to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
If you think either state cares enough about hn commenters to go through some process of surveillance or whatever, don't you think they'd just hire a real person to do the psyop?
Like, this isn't a particularly huge social network, I don't see what benefit the automation would give you here.
But then again.. The China-hawkness of this place is sometimes suspiciously a little strong. So you might have a point.
> If you think either state cares enough about hn commenters to go through some process of surveillance or whatever, don't you think they'd just hire a real person to do the psyop?
I think it's fair to assume that they care and and that they have people on payroll for this purpose. HN would most likely be just another entry in their list of targeted boards/discussion sites. The effort to develop and operate a tool for this purpose is minimal. One person assisted with such automated tool would be able to monitor and interact with thousands, if not millions, of online discussions to spread their governement's views/propaganda/missinformation.
I think RESTRICT bill is fully in the interest of China to the point that it may have sponsored it covertly. It will basically change US into China 2.0 from the point of view of their citizens. It will crumble the facade freedoms that US was trying to put as an argument why two party system is any better than one party system.
Why would they when it validates their internet strategy? It just shows the CCP was 10 years ahead of the US when it comes to restricting what apps citizens can use (to "protect" them ofcourse).
You're thinking short term. If the US bans tiktok, more countries will follow and american tech companies will have a hard time competing there. On these grounds chinese companies will be able to compete better because they're already used to running multiple versions of the same app targeted at different markets.
> The bill only applies to technology linked to a “foreign adversary.” Those countries include China (as well as Hong Kong); Cuba; Iran; North Korea; Russia, and Venezuela.
I don't see the problem. We already restrict trade or banking with these countries. Social media apps and software are products like any other.
> “foreign adversary.” Those countries include China
This is a pretty massive policy shift, no? All the other countries are effectively at frozen-conflict or proxy war status with the US, and heavily sanctioned. Putting China on that list is a major step towards at least a Cold War with China, let alone a hot war.
"You can no longer buy anything manufactured in China" would wreck the US economy in the medium term. It would also probably make the war over Taiwan inevitable.
Nobody seems to really care about them, regardless of the source. The level I would regard as a cold war is the level I remember between the US and the USSR: almost no travel and trade. So long as there's two million containers per month arriving from China, there is no way you could describe the situation as a cold war. Just an exchange of stiffly worded letters.
> Putting China on that list is a major step towards at least a Cold War with China, let alone a hot war.
The only way to prevent war. America is the only thing standing between them and multiple wars in the South China Sea, and we must continue to be willing to support nations like Taiwan.
Giving them access to widespread propaganda tools, dramatically produces a chances that we do when we need to.
Well there has been dire need of regulations for social media for years now. It does look pretty iffy when a really strong piece of regulation comes along, and what it does is screw the customers and protect the businesses.
Bills get passed as drafted all the time, what are you talking about? Sure there are opportunities for amendment etc but it's not some sort of guarantee that it will be heavily revised.
No they don't get passed all the time. Less than 5% and only after a long debate, many changes and amendments. This one in particular has no chance of becoming law the way is redacted, not even chance of reaching the Senate.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. —C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock