• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

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

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I read it as a bluff too.

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

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

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

        • Defaced@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          This is why the whole situation exists, IMO if there was a reason to believe China is trying to influence united states citizens, then this wouldn’t even be a discussion. There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out? Because there’s probably a reason they’re being singled out. It might be nothing, but I’m inclined to think that the people who signed the bill know more than what they’re letting on for national security reasons.

          • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Look at any security analysis done on it and you’ll see the insane amount of information it collects from every single user is absolutely stunning. They definitely use their influence and knowledge of individuals to drive opinion of those who use their platform.

        • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah I watched this dude show me a video of a device that opens jars and now I am thinking about becoming a spy for the Chinese government.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        But they can’t continue to make money this way. It will be seen as control. So they’re stuck creating a competitor or just writing off the US market.

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah I think they’re angling for a reversal, if not they’ll sell and probably take some massive non voting share of the venture along with a bunch of billionaires.

          • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            They won’t sell lol, like why would they? If they truly are owned by the Chinese government why would they sell it to an American company?

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The public [who] wants TikTok will get TikTok

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

      I’ll push them onto the fediverse yet.

      • WillySpreadum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Deplatforming is equivalent to banning in basically every instance. The public town square doesn’t exist in the digital world we all operate in. Change my mind.

        • qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Situations like this are a good opportunity to increase the rate of tech literacy in a broader population or to promote decentralized solutions, but unfortunately that’s a pipe dream.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

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

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

      • firadin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

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

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

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

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

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Malign influence. Telling people to participate in democracy isn’t a bad thing.

            • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes but telling an army of thirteen year olds doing dance videos to call representatives is worthless, if anything it hurts TikToks argument since it proves they’re doing the influencing of Americans that the government wants them not doing

            • someguy3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You missed the entire point. They declared 1) We are not doing anything of that sort, then: 2) they did exactly things of that sort. It’s like a slap stick comedy show.

        • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          And facebook tells its users to vote. Encouraging people to make their voices heard and engage in the democratic process is a good thing.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’d say absolutely, if Cambridge Analytica wasn’t a thing. I’d honestly rather have people not vote than be motivated to go vote because they think the liberal communists are putting fluoride in water to make frogs gay.

            It’s somehow always the organizations and individuals who are trying to manipulate people that seem to care the most about people’s voices being heard in politics. Churches, social media, daytime TV, that crazy uncle you don’t like to talk to at family gatherings…

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Hey some of us are the crazy cousin saying you should vote while also advocating pissing on the floor when your job tries to deny bathroom rights.

          • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            “Vote to participate in democracy! Here’s some local voting resources”

            vs

            “Vote to protect our interests! Tell your representative that they are killing free speech if they don’t listen to me”

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      When you’re forced to participate in capitalism, your only option is to play the game. I agree, this is mostly just a bluff.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why though? Why would they give up their trade secrets? They have a global market.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        They could sell the user accounts and content and let another company clip that into their own recommendation algo.

        I’ve been a part of a few tech acquisitions that have worked this way. They keep their secret sauce but hand over the community.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah that’s certainly possible. I just don’t think it will go the way people are thinking.

  • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    Better to force US competition to start from scratch.

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean the sale agreement could require the buyer to never expand outside the US.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      For money. Whoever buys it has to pay you for it. Shutting down just means leaving a gaping hole in American social media that some other company will fill and you’ll be in the same position but with less money.

    • randao@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Makes zero sense, they would be burning whatever value they could sell if for. Only a company controlled by a government can do stupid stuff like that.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not really, they would still be operating the same business in every other part of the world, except for the US. So you’d then have US Tiktok competing with World Tiktok. They can’t be forced to sell the global operations due to a mandate from some American court, no matter how much they think to be the world police.

  • kirklennon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

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

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

    • Album@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      105
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

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

          • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It’s not worth anything, your argument was that the US being such a small percentage of tiktoks userbase meant that the American market is only worthwhile to TikTok as a spying tool. Which does not make any sense.

            I’m saying that tiktok has other markets in other countries, and the US only represents a small part of their global reach, so of course tiktok would only be a small percentage of their userbase.

      • Buttons@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve always wondered what would happen if ByteDance sells TikTok for $5 to a US Citizen who frequently visits China for lavish vacations, and that US Citizen decide to keep all the algorithms the same.

        If China has an ulterior motive with TIkTok, can’t they just find a US Citizen to carry out their ulterior motive?

      • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah same with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, fox news, CNN, News max, Msnbc and every single other media outlet by that logic. Apparently any company not owned Merica is propaganda too.

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      This means absolutely nothing.

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

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

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

      • kirklennon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

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

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

        • firadin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re assuming its a profit-focused endeavor rather than a propaganda arm of the Chinese government.

          • kirklennon@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            5 months ago

            I think it’s a privately-owned, profit-focused endeavor that is nevertheless beholden to the Chinese government and which the government wants to take as much advantage of as possible. Deep down, I’m certain that their sole goal is to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can. If they also need to exfiltrate some data and send it to the CCP, that’s just a necessary business expense.

          • Buttons@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            If TikTok’s purpose is to spread Chinese propaganda, can’t they just find a US Citizen that can run the website for them?

            “Yeah, it’s my personal website where I exercise my 1st Amendment rights, also it has 100 million daily users and I happen to agree with China on a lot of things.” If a US Citizen were to say this, there would be nothing illegal about it I think?

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              We are talking about the same country right? The US committed the fucking Tuskegee experiments, MK ultra, and more recently Gitmo as a whole. If some dumbfuck wants to be a Chinese puppet I wouldnt put it past the feds to off em, shame they commited suicide by shooting themself in the back of the head twelve times with a shotgun.

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          5% of customers driving 25% of revenue is a market you want to invest in.

          Amazon wasn’t profitable for how many years? It’s the exact same play. Take a loss to create something artificially desirable, strangle the competition and lock up your walled garden, then crank the prices.

          I’ve talked with merchants TikTok Shop recruited, TikTok was paying them a ton to sell there, eating their processing fees, their shipping costs, and paying for massive discounts to customers so they could juice their metrics.

          They’re starting to crank up their fees this spring and summer.

          Same with advertising, advertisers want to go to TikTok, but I’m sure most of the actual spend is happening outside the app on influencers. TikTok wants that pie too.

          Taking a loss means nothing in this context

        • Snapz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Also, hard to quantify how much of the popularity of tiktok is driven by US content globally, versus locally. You lose all that UGC is you cut out US

        • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, kinda

          You watch TikTok, someone shills a product, you buu it with a button that pops up, or you click into their store to buy their cosmetics line.

    • nieceandtows@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Looks like they’re saying it’s running at a loss and is valued at $50b, so that Musk would end up buying it off their hands.

    • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      66
      ·
      5 months ago

      Don’t use it if you don’t like it, but don’t give this bullshit Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda control of something just because you don’t like it.

      It’s just as bad or good as any other algorithm based content app like Facebook or Instagram. If we have a problem with privacy for example then go after that like with gdpr.

      • dko1905@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t think it’s primarily about the algorithm or “Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” but instead about data and company ownership. Currently the US and EU are far closer allies with each other than with china. Services that are owned/controlled by their countries are therefore prioritized, and competing services from non-ally countries are way more scrutinized.

      • ultratiem@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think you have it backwards, in that it’s the US that’s trying to stop all the Chinese propaganda coming from that app.

        And if TT pull out of the US, it’s pretty telling that their core drive for that thing wasn’t money.

        • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          Why would a tech company sell their product to another competitor in such a big landscape like US? It’s quite very much because of money.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

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

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

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

    No, it isn’t “actually upholding” freedom of speech to ban TikTok.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

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

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

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

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

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

        • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I mean, to be fair, both are extremely bad and should be stopped, but a hostile foreign country gathering data and pushing propaganda on your citizens IS worse than you or non-hostile foreign countries doing it.

          • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I would argue that gathering data about your own citizens is actively worse than china doing it; an average US citizen has a lot more to lose if the 3-letter-agencies or the police use it against them, because those are who you would have to deal with in person.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      lol you think “freedom of speech” includes foreign adversary right to harvest American citizen data?

      • NeatPinecone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Exactly. I only want my data to be harvested by the NSA. It feels more patriotic.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

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

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is obviously a negotiation tactic.

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

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

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

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

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

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

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

  • ObsidianZed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.

          The President can’t just name any country an “adversary country,” but it’s not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.

          However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:

          1. Publicly notify Congress of the intent to classify them as an adversary company (assuming they meet the rest of the rules) at least 30 days prior to any further action
          2. Notify the public of the change

          Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).

          So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I’m more worried about the precedent it’s setting. We generally don’t ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Does is specify ISP blocking directly in the bill?? It was my understanding that it would just prevent US based app stores (Apple, Google) from distributing the app in their stores.

        I’m not even sure how ISP blocking would work, unless it was to just blackhole DNS queries to tiktok.com. Having attempted to block DNS lookups for TikTok on my own home router via PiHole, I can say that the app either hard codes IP addresses, or resolves DNS over HTTPS independently of the system DNS settings, so I doubt a DNS based ISP block would be feasible.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Here’s the bill (Division H is the relevant part).

          I misread “internet hosting service” in the initial section as “Internet service,” so I’m guessing it doesn’t obligate ISPs to block TikTok or any other service.

          It does block server hosts from allowing distribution of blocked apps though. So no local mirrors of the app.

          • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Right they define internet hosting service as:

            (5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.

            So this would prevent a US organization like AWS, Oracle, etc from hosting the TikTok user data as long as TikTok is owned or a subsidiary of ByteDance or another “foreign adversary”.

            Elsewhere in the text, they exclude “service providers” from restrictions, so it seems like ISPs are not going to block requests to TikTok.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yup, that’s my read too after a review.

              I honestly kinda skimmed that part initially because I was more interested in how it could impact other apps. I don’t particularly care about TikTok, I just wanted to know what other apps could be targeted and what the process for that looks like.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is about banning their ability to do business in America, not just trying to ban access to their content on the Internet itself.

  • XNX@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

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

      • XNX@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        5 months ago

        And facebook isnt? Facebook did experiments on teens to see if theyre easier to manipulate when theyre depressed. They took money to apread fake news to manipulate voters for the presidential election. Yall are so blinded by the china boogeyman its absurd

          • cybersin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Does anyone even use FB anymore besides boomers?

            Ok, so boomers are not actually people, facebook’s 3 billion active users don’t exist, and 250 million of those fake people are certainly not from the fake US.

            But TikTok…

            Amazing how we are talking of Chinese surveillance while the US just renewed another one of its surveillance bills.

            So much “I am immune to, and can spot all propaganda” in this thread.

          • XNX@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            5 months ago

            If tiktok can be considered owned by the Chinese gov so can facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM theres tons of programs secret and public that shows american tech companies have to obey to the US government demands.

            Boomers vote more than anyone else

            Facebook owns all the biggest apps, instagram whatsapp, and now threads is getting bigger than twitter. Great lets kill competition because scary china boogeyman all put all the power in the hands of mark zuckerberg, the conservatives that manipulate the platform and pay to manipulate the people on it.

            • Album@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              If tiktok can be considered owned by the Chinese gov so can facebook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM theres tons of programs secret and public that shows american tech companies have to obey to the US government demands.

              “In 2014, ByteDance established an internal Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee.[47] The company’s vice president, Zhang Fuping, serves as the company’s CCP Committee Secretary.[48][49]”

              This is not a defense of FB or american companies, but rather an indictment of tiktok and an acknowledgement that the degree of CCP involvement in tiktok is not the same as neolib involvement in FB.

              • yamanii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                5 months ago

                So why did the PRISM project exists? If there is freedom to deny the government access why did american companies all get in bed with it? This is also not a conspiracy since Snowden will be jailed if he steps foot in american soil.

              • XNX@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                PRISM and countless programs arent conspiracies they are facts. The US isnt totalitarian to their citizens but they are to the millions of people who’s countries theyve placed fascists into power to kill and imprison their citizens

        • Dran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          It is possible to both be anti-chinese government and also want comprehensive privacy laws in the US. Like, I absolutely buy that the Chinese government has access to tiktok data. I, however, don’t think forcing a sale is the right way to deal with any of this. Comprehensive privacy and data collection laws would go much farther towards making it so it doesn’t really matter who owns what.

      • shameless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        You wanna talk Chinese spyware, why are they not outright banning Temu? That’s a much better documented case of actually being spyware.

        In terms of Tiktok being spyware, they are tracking users in much the same ways that every other big social media company is. Should other nations be worried about Facebook sharing that data with the US govt to produce psyops campaigns against foreign nations?

        I’m against any country blocking access to things in the name of “national security” and providing little to no evidence on it. Its been done too many times to trojan horse in other malicious activities that governments want to do.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        For spyware the cyber security community seems pretty meh about it…