TikTok will not be sold, Chinese parent ByteDance tells US
TikTok will not be sold, Chinese parent ByteDance tells US
www.bbc.com
TikTok will not be sold, Chinese parent ByteDance tells US
297 评论
-
Banning TikTok in an election year is proof Democrats don't want to win.
-
Lol it was bipartisan. Not just democrats, Republicans as well.
-
So what? This only pisses off the Democrat's base and it will make them stay home.
-
Notably the ban doesn’t kick in until after the election, after which it may not even be Biden’s problem. Maybe ByteDance will shut it down sooner. Maybe the next administration won’t follow through with the ban. 🤷
-
It was smart to delay the ban. The original bill would have banned it before the election - monumentally stupid! This, at least, delays the impact.
People are paying attention, though, and TikTok has been buying ads to campaign against this law. It's still going to have an impact.
-
And Biden himself has a tiktok account that pumps out content.
The whole thing is very cynical and weird.
-
It's a piss poor attempt to try control tiktok and ensure they play along. They don't really want it banned, they just want to control the flow of information and it's absolutely destroying the illusion of the first amendment!
-
-
-
-
Ehhh...I doubt it.
-
-
The sell-or-ban measure was signed into law by US President Joe Biden on Wednesday.
This is the important part you might have missed, without a president signing it into law it means nothing.
Similar to when Biden said he would never sign a M4A bill (4yrs ago), he would veto, which became a deal breaker to some on the far left.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+veto+medicare+for+all+bill
-
Well yeah, but saying this was all on democrats isn't true, either. A democratic signed it, but an entire group of Democrats and Republicans are the reason it exists. Besides, I'm ok with the ban. A lot of people are actually, so technically, yeah it will affect who we vote for haha
-
Maybe in your circles people are okay with banning a social media company due to perceived 'spying', but in reality we know why the blues/reds want to ban it.
People in my circles are fighting and helping share why these bans are bad for our society and free speech in general.
I hope that helps you see a different view from what you are used to!
-
No, not really. It's cool of you disagree with me, though.
-
-
-
-
-
What’s the overlap between people who vote Republican and people who use Tiktok? I’m actually curious.
-
The age range skews younger, so probably not huge. It's definitely there though - lots of "tradwife" thinly disguised fetish content. 😒
There's a reason Trump came out against this ban, he knows it's going to be unpopular and he loses nothing by flip-flopping on it.
This is just a free W for Trump and an L for Democrats with literally zero upsides. It accomplishes nothing besides pissing people off!
-
lots of “tradwife”
Wild, I've never stumbled on any of that. But it has a really sensitive algorithm and I'm pretty firmly entrenched in the science-travel-pets axis.
-
Well, unless there’s a credible national security angle that’s being kept confidential. I kind of suspect there is, since Trump tried to push through similar legislation, but worded it so badly that it never got out of debate… and the likes of Wyden voted for it even while they said it was the wrong legislation to solve the problem.
-
The USA literally installed state department officials into TikTok https://scheerpost.com/2023/04/17/tiktok-chinese-trojan-horse-is-run-by-state-department-officials/
-
Lmao and then they get mad at communist political comissars.
-
-
Please don't tell me you actually believe them when they cry about national security. It's almost always a lie.
-
Usually it’s about economics. But in this case, it may actually be true.
Generally, I consider real natsec issues to be things they can’t tell the public. So when I see privacy minded reps joining in with reps from both side of the aisle, I’m willing to lend a bit of credence to a security angle.
Assuming it’s not just the US being upset that some other autocratic government is controlling the medium du jour.
-
... and so by whining about natsec they can get you to support anything, as long as they don't tell you about it?
-
No, I ignore the whining and consider it may be an issue based on actual behavior, as I originally stated.
Hence the “in this case, they might be actually telling the truth” from the original statement.
Just because they over-use an excuse doesn’t mean that it isn’t true on the odd occasion.
The problem is that so much crying wolf makes it more difficult to tell when it’s real.
-
If this was an actual national security threat, why would they give them so long to sell? In fact, why even try to buy it? Why not just ban it immediately? Furthermore, why haven't they implemented Biden's executive order to stop China from buying data from Meta or Alphabet? And why haven't they given us any proof of an actual national security threat?
Their actual behavior betrays the truth, just like you said. It's clear this is just national business interests and censorship.
Stop believing in national security bullshit.
-
"The app that has kids doing silly dances and is a festering piece of shit is a natsec issue".
Those people don't realise just how fucking daft they sound!
-
-
-
-
-
-
It's actually already banned in multiple countries, especially for anyone in government positions.
-
According to the world map in this link the countries that have banned it outright are: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Krzykstan, India, Nepal, and Somalia.
(For anyone else like me who has trouble with unlabeled maps).
-
What about according to the text on that damn page?
-
The text is poorly organized, the map is faster.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The CPC can just buy data from a different broker. You think Alphabet or Meta are loyal to American interests?
Also, TikTok won't be banned for months, so it won't change the campus protests at all. In fact it'll probably piss the protesters off even more, it's very obvious government censorship.
Also also, there's zero proof TikTok is promoting pro-Palestine/anti-Israel content. That's just what is naturally popular, the reality is that all the other social media companies are suppressing pro-Palestine/anti-Israel content. That's it.
-
Facebook absolutely would sell your info to foreign governments, however I'm not convinced Google would.
I know Google harvests a shitton of data and uses it for advertising, but that's ironically why I think they probably wouldn't actually sell it. Because Google owns a massive advertising company, it's in their best interests to keep the data they collect so that other companies can't pop up and use the data themselves.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the bill isn't specifically about tiktok but instead covers the sale of personal data to foreign countries in general. It's just that it's worded in a way that tiktok is the obvious target. As such, I'm not sure an American company could sell their customer's info to China; at least not without laundering it through other companies first.
However, all of that said, I'm not trying to defend the bill, tiktok, Google or Facebook. I don't like any of those companies and while I think the concept of the bill is good, it's very obviously focused on tiktok and, like you and others have pointed out, does nothing about the data collection that American companies do.
-
The law only prohibits the operations of so-called "foreign adversary controlled applications" i.e. companies with Chinese investors.
I'm pretty sure if TikTok was controlled by American investors and sold data to China it would be fine - although there's also an executive action that bans selling data to foreign adversaries, it also hasn't actually been implemented by regulators and is pretty simple to work around anyway since a third-party can just buy data from American companies and then sell it to China.
I think a bill like this that targeted all companies that collect data would be good.
Targeting "foreign adversary controlled applications" doesn't really help anyone.
-
-
-
You think Chinese-owned Tiktok is inciting anti genocide protests on purpose?
That train of thought has interesting implications. American-owned Facebook keeps being caught inciting actual genocides in other countries...
-
-
-
You'd be surprised. I used to work in a rural factory. All the big burly red-neck older men were on tiktok during their smoke breaks.
-
They're both dumb as hell and love to be influenced by autocratic governments
-
You’re saying that 1/3 of Americans are dumb as hell while repeating BlueAnonsense.
- IT Pro: Cambridge Analytica models were exaggerated and ineffective, [UK Information Commissioner’s Office] claims
- Wall Street Journal: Mueller Doesn’t Find Trump Campaign Conspired With Russia
- Jacobin: Democrats and Mainstream Media Were the Real Kremlin Assets
- Washington Post: FEC fines DNC, Clinton for violating rules in funding Steele dossier
- Washington Post: Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters
- Jacobin: It Turns Out Hillary Clinton, Not Russian Bots, Lost the 2016 Election
- Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork
- Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal On the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.
- MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes
- Jeff Gerth at Columbia Journalism Review on Russiagate: Editor's Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four
- Matt Taibbi: WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016
- Chris Hedges: Why Russiagate Won’t Go Away
- Paris Marx: The TikTok ban is all about preserving US power
-
BlueAnonsense
Stealing this.
-
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
-
-
-
Yes, that is just another reason the DNC/Democrates will continue to lose support, compared to 2020.
Some also left the duopoly due to following the DNC Fraud Lawsuit, Bernie Sanders 2016.
Interesting times we are living in, we shall continue to follow!
-
Who votes for the dictator because of losing TikTok?
-
They're just going to stay home.
-
Which is the same as a vote for a dictator. And that is super cool if you are looking forward to Project 2025, and selling out loved ones so they can be put in camps as political prisoners.
-
🤡
Is a vote for Trump actually two votes for Trump? Oh! Is every dollar you don't donate to Biden a dollar donated to Trump?
-
Mathematician here, I can answer this. Equivalence relations are symmetric, so if staying home is a vote for Trump then showing up to vote for Trump is the same as staying home on election day.
-
Okay, but then isn't staying home also a vote for Biden by the same logic?
This isn't a binary relation, there's clearly three options (vote for Biden, vote for Trump, vote for neither).
-
That doesn't make any sense. The idea that staying home could be a vote for Biden seems pretty silly on its face. If that were true, there wouldn't be any point in going out to vote for him, because the majority (or at least a plurality) of the country stays home regardless. He'd win in a landslide.
-
Why is it that staying home is a vote for Trump but it isn't a vote for Biden. Doesn't that seem strange to you?
And you're right, it doesn't make any sense, and that applies to staying home being a vote for Trump. The plurality of the country stays home, so Trump should win in a landslide, right? Yet he lost once. This seems like a glaring error in the idea that a protest vote is a vote for Trump.
-
Doesn’t that seem strange to you?
It doesn't seem strange at all. I have never once heard someone suggest that staying home is a vote for Biden, but it's pretty well agreed upon that not voting is a vote for Trump.
...so Trump should win in a landslide, right? Yet he lost once. This seems like a glaring error in the idea that a protest vote is a vote for Trump.
Only if you believe that election wasn't stolen.
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not following your logic here. Not voting, or actually voting for Trump both work in his favor because his base is going to vote for him no matter what. You would only be hurting the side that wants us to continue to have future elections. But at the end of the day if you can look in the mirror and be ok with selling out democracy more power to ya.
-
They just passed a fascist bipartisan bill to censor TikTok because it was showing the truth about Gaza and because it was disrupting the preexisting media cartel that already exists in the US. This was part of a larger fascist foreign aid package meant to help Israel carry out its genocide and prolong the war in Ukraine instead of seek a peace deal and help provoke a war in Taiwan by arming them to the teeth and pushing us to fucking WW3. By voting for them you are making it clear that they can do anything they want to you and you'll beg for more.
I already decided not to vote for genocide Joe a while ago. If I'm going to vote at all, I'm going to vote the way Bushnell did.
-
But at the end of the day if you can look in the mirror and be ok with selling out democracy more power to ya.
Brotherman I want Amerika to collapse. You think I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror? I already can't any day I feel like I've sold out to you settlers; selling you out to a better steward would probably be the most tacit sense of relief I've felt in my ENTIRE LIFE.
-
-
-
Have you thought maybe the democrats themselves own some responsibility for the jeopardy the election is in? Maybe banning one of the most popular social media sites right before an election was a bad move?
-
Pretty sure that funding, aiding and abetting a genocide while denying there's money for anything that benefits their own citizens is what's losing the democrats support.
-
It had votes/support from both sides. And giving away democracy because you're upset about a social media site seems like a bad take. Imagine telling future generations you traded the country's democracy because you were mad at them because they took away your short video sites.
-
-
Can you not comprehend what i said? Tiktok is more popular with younger people, and younger people have historically voted more for democrats. Of course republicans would help democrats shoot themselves in the foot here. How can you see this and not give any responsibility to the democrats?
-
-
-
No, it's not.
Abstaining from voting is an option the voter is given.
I bet you have a heck of a time differentiating apples, oranges, and pears.
"A pear is basically just an orange because you didn't pick the apple." - TimLovesTech
-
The guy you replied to has replied in a similar variant of “x event happened, therefore dems don’t want to win.”
Can’t fault them though, he’s just doing his job and following orders. The opposite would be …. Unthinkable
-
-
-
By the dictator, you mean the one running the genocide and expanding spying on the civilian population as we currently speak, right?
-
-
297 评论