this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024

61 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18645 readers

3559 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

House passes bill that could lead to TikTok ban in broad bipartisan vote (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

This bill prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

Under the bill, a foreign adversary controlled application is directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd. or TikTok (including their subsidiaries or successors); or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary and has been determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. The prohibition does not apply to an application that is primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations of the bill and enforce the bill's provisions. Entities that violate the bill are subject to civil penalties based on the number of users.

The bill requires a covered application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user's request before the prohibition takes effect.

The bill gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the bill. Further, a challenge to the bill must be brought within 165 days after the bill's enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the bill must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

To me this just shows how broken Congress is. US social media companies have been collecting our data, building profiles of us, manipulating us with the content they show in various ways, harming teen mental health, and all of that for decades, but Congress did nothing. Facebook in particular was used as a tool to manipulate the 2016 election by Russia in various ways, but apart from some show hearings, Congress did nothing. But TikTok is alleged to do the same thing (remember nobody has actually shown proof that the CCP is like directing TikTok to promote pro-China content for Americans), and we get bipartisanship somehow. That vote was more bipartisan than a stopgap bill to prevent a government shutdown.

And the reason is "China bad" is a message that voters agree with, and because Google and Meta are more than happy to reward these people for helping to kill their biggest rival in social media. At the end of the day TikTok users are forced onto less desirable platforms so their data can be harvested by American companies and all that, our brave congresspeople get to pretend to be "tough on China", and Big Tech rakes the profits they were losing by being outcompeted in the market. So few in Congress, on either side, have integrity.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

China calling the US a bully for doing this is hilarious

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Unfortunate seeing something opposed by Maxwell Frost, Jamal Bowman, the ACLU, EFF, HRW and others that's going to give whoever's the President a new power to restrict speech and association, but that's pretty on brand for this House I suppose

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I am INCREDIBLY conflicted on this.

On the one hand? Tiktok is demonstrably horrible for humanity. It is like we saw the media illiteracy and attention span murdering aspects of youtube/instagram and cranked it up to 11. Like, I know every "generation" hates what the next one are into but holy shit is tiktok all about sensory overload and incomprehensible speeds and dialogue (if you noticed a LOT of youtubers starting to remove any and all pauses between words and sentences, that is why).

And... we definitely have a lot of reason to be afraid of foreign governments influencing elections and internal politics. In large part because we have watched it happen for the past decade or so (and even done it to a few governments ourselves).

So, on all those grounds: Ban the fuck out of tiktok

But... I also REALLY do not like governments blocking free speech. No, I don't mean not protecting people who need to say the n-word to order a Big Mac. I mean removing platforms for discussion. Twitter is already basically dead for these purposes. And it isn't like we don't already have platforms for third parties to influence elections on...

So... I really don't know. I would hope we could actually base this on medical/psychological experts and analysis but that isn't how laws work. And... maybe the world is "better" with the inability to listen to any pauses in sentences and to need at least three different subway surfers streams on any given display while someone talks about how they are going to go get a chicken sandwich tomorrow. I want to say "the kids" are wrong but I also can't stop feeling like Armin Tamzarian.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They are not blocking anyone’s speech, you are free to choose any other method to speak any view you want.

TikTok has fairly strict policies around deletion of content that they find unsuitable, which is why you see weird abbreviations for common words, like “dead“. holding up TikTok as a example of free speech fails to recognize what TikTok is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

you are free to choose any other method to speak any view you want

Just not the one you're using right now. Also, the President reserves the right to deny you a future venue for speech, based on whether he feels like it threatens ~~his personal political interests~~ national security.

TikTok has fairly strict policies around deletion of content that they find unsuitable

Every platform has that.

holding up TikTok as a example of free speech fails to recognize what TikTok is.

Its so cool to see the argument against TikTok boil down to "I can't stream gore to my audience, so its not Real Free Speech, so we can destroy it."

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It also ignores the reality of the good social media has done for the world.

The Arab Spring is almost always cited as Twitter being good. But it was also good for a lot of activism and reporting regarding the BLM protests, police brutality, etc. And that was all while twitter had incredibly restrictive rules on what could be posted without getting banned or shadowbanned (just ask sex workers).

And... even Tiktok has been a good force for that. It largely slotted into that similar role and, propaganda issues aside, is still a great source to educate people on the genocide in Palestine and the failed attempt at genocide in Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Arab Spring is almost always cited as Twitter being good.

Oh sure. If not for the Arab Spring, we wouldn't have slave markets in Libya and Houthis firing rockets into the Gulf of Adan.

But it was also good for a lot of activism and reporting regarding the BLM protests

The organizing and activism that gave birth to BLM in 2014 was corrupted and occluded by social media, with dozens of astroturfed groups popping up to take credit and grift people out of donations. There was a brief period of massive public organizing through these online systems, but once law enforcement and business got on the same page, real organizations got stiffled by administrators and mass surveillance while only the toxic / scammy accounts were allowed to remain. A number of leading BLM activists died under mysterious circumstances while subsequent incarnations were little more than parasites on the movement

And… even Tiktok has been a good force for that.

There's definitely some benefit to a social media system that exists outside the grasping hand of domestic police and private finance. But this is still a firm being run out of a Singapore conglomerate's international media office. Not exactly a bastion of good governance and equitable public service.

TikTok might not be an arm of the national security state, but it is still a profit motivated business enterprise. If it is a force for any kind of good, that is tangential to its mission of maximizing revenues and minimizing costs.

Also cannot be overstated how these only tools become addictive and socially transformative in ways that aren't particularly good.

TrueAnon had a great piece on this, exploring how people continuously exposing themselves to the mannerisms and hysterics of TikTok influencers were developing all sorts of weird social quirks and neurosises, as they implicitly begin mimicking the behaviors of performers.

This isn't in any way unique to TikTok. Continuous consumption of old fashion TV has produced similar effects. But its illustrative of an innate social harm caused by attention-grabbing phone apps and continuous, disjointed, extremely loud and incredibly close displays have on human cognition.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Arab Spring bad

Yes. If "just" protesting guaranteed a good outcome, the world would be a better place. And if we could know the long term outcome of any event then things would also be a lot better.

But the fact of the matter is: Twitter provided people with a way to not only see the outside world but to also coordinate protests and activism. It ALSO allowed bad actors to do the same. If you can find a way to enable the former while preventing the latter... I would say you have a trillion dollar idea but you probably just have a trip to a black site in your future.

There was a brief period of massive public organizing through these online systems, but once law enforcement and business got on the same page, real organizations got stiffled by administrators and mass surveillance while only the toxic / scammy accounts were allowed to remain.

So... what you are saying is that having a discussion and organization platform is good until there is government (because cops are basically the government) intervention?

Mostly your post is just the textbook internet "but it isn't perfect so it is horrible"

As for

Also cannot be overstated how these only tools become addictive and socially transformative in ways that aren’t particularly good.

Its almost like I also complained about that when talking about how I am conflicted on this ban.

But, as you acknowledge, this is nothing new. Speech patterns have taken on a LOT of "california-isms" due to so much of media being filmed in California (or a few hours away by plane in Vancouver). And there are a LOT of concerns over what that means for language. We make fun of Quebec and France but there are also languages that are more or less dead at this point because of cultural blending. And while there are a LOT of good aspects to that, there are also a lot of "bad" aspects.

I do not like what tiktok is doing to the world. But one of the things that bothers me the most is the editing of audio to remove ANY pauses. But I am also self-aware enough to understand that "Ugh. I don't need to know that I turn left at the place that used to be a barn. Just give me the address" is a similar feeling.

Which is why I don't think "tiktok is bad for culture" is an argument unless it is backed up by medical and sociological research.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

If “just” protesting guaranteed a good outcome, the world would be a better place. And if we could know the long term outcome of any event then things would also be a lot better.

But instead we sent in the French Air Force to destabilize Libya and funneled billions in weapons to Israel in our proxy war with Syria and Lebanon and Iran - all of which underwent their own protests and none of which seemed to meaningfully improve from the revolts. The revolution in Egypt only lasted long enough to hold elections, which were immediately undone by a western backed military coup (because the winners were too Muslim-y for our tastes). Meanwhile, the Saudis managed to escape the Green Revolution comparatively unscathed for mysterious reasons nobody seems interested in talking about. And in Palestine, well... Anyone want to ask what happened to the peace marchers in Gaza in 2018??

Twitter provided people with a way to not only see the outside world but to also coordinate protests and activism.

Several left-wing activists had their Twitter accounts suspended after a false-report campaign by far-right users

This isn't the first time its happened or even the only social media system that's done it. Reddit, Facebook, YouTube...

Social media feels more and more like a honeypot. If nothing else, it is a graveyard of movements - from OWS to BLM - that never develop any kind of party character and always get overrun with grifters in the end.

Which is why I don’t think “tiktok is bad for culture” is an argument unless it is backed up by medical and sociological research.

Which the podcast I linked goes into.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Things like this are why I'm so grumpy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed legislation that could ban TikTok in the U.S. if its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance doesn't sell its stake in the massively popular social media platform.

The House fast-tracked the legislation, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, by bringing it up under a procedure that required the support of two-thirds of members for passage.

TikTok has repeatedly been targeted by lawmakers seeking to restrict the app over concerns that the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over the data of its 170 million American users.

The U.S. "has not been able to give hard evidence to prove the so-called threats from TikTok to U.S. national security," Liu said in a statement, calling on the U.S. to "provide an open, fair, equal and non-discriminatory business environment to companies of all countries operating in the U.S."

"I still have concerns about naming a specific company in legislation, but it feels like this House bill has momentum," Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters Monday.

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously advanced it after officials from the Justice Department and FBI gave members a classified briefing on TikTok.

The original article contains 935 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Fucking America First bullshit.

Yea, TikTok is highly problematic... but no more so than Meta or Google.