In India users that had it installed could continue to use it. And downloading it in India is trivial. On iPhone it's as simple as changing your region, on Android you just need to install the APK (installer) - which TikTok makes conveniently available on their website. I learned this from a quick search of 'how to install TikTok in India' which is apparently quite the common search in India. [1] I tried to dig up some data on how many Indian TikTok users there are. Probably unsurprisingly, that's not available. It seems fairly safe to say it's going to be quite a hefty number though!

So it was a toothless ban. By contrast, US wanted to have their cake and eat it too - keep TikTok and gain complete control over it. And while I know basically nothing about Indian law I'm fairly certain they have a much better legal argument in the US as well. So I don't think the situations have much in common.

[1] - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IN&q=H...

Doesn’t China also demand complete control of foreign apps in their country? Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that the CCP demands specific changes to or outright removal of apps all the time.

In general, yes. This [1] is the first paragraph of the first article of their constitution: "The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited."

They are a self described democratic dictatorship with a system that openly and voluntarily chooses to sacrifice individual liberty and freedom for what they see as the collective good. That is their right as a sovereign power, but it is not a system I would like to live under. And any movement in this sort of direction is something that I think should be actively opposed.

[1] - http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/node_282...

North Korea also declares itself "democratic", just to add to the parent.

It's a bit different with China. China has a mandated one party system, but as for individuals they do have normal and fair elections that I think even the US could learn something from. Basically at the smallest segment of society you have groups of something like 2000 people who have a local elected representative who has significant power to actually get things done. Those representatives then elect representatives at a higher tier, and so on up until you have the Politburo Standing Committee electing the President/Secretary of the CCP.

I think this system is pretty nice in lots of ways because it lets local representatives focus on local things, while high level representatives can focus on broad national interests. It also means peoples votes are always extremely important and you're going to be quite 'close' (literally and figuratively) to your representative. Of course the obvious downside is that in China you don't even get to directly vote for the President, but on the other hand - that is similar to many parliamentary systems used throughout Europe. Anyhow, it's an interesting system! Our first past the post district based system is completely broken and dysfunctional, but the people most benefited from it are the only ones who could fix it, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon. But it's fun to at least consider alternatives!

The funny part is that they give you something like 31 names and tell you to pick 30 of them that you want to be elected (so one person gets left out). Early in his career, Xi Jinping actually lost his only direct election this way (they ignored the results and gave him the post anyways). Even at the lowest level, there are definitely never any one on one elections where two people can campaign for the same office, the system doesn't allow for that.

> This [1] is the first paragraph of the first article of their constitution: "The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

Technically, freedom of speech, religion, press is guaranteed in the Chinese constitution. But China is not a rule of law country so these rights are not enforced in any manner beyond how the government sees fit.

> So it was a toothless ban.

The ban just doesn't apply to end users, but also to advertisers and content producers in the USA. That would have some impact, what is the point of distributing your app if you can't make any money on it.

> By contrast, US wanted to have their cake and eat it too - keep TikTok and gain complete control over it.

The law just specifies that it can't be owned by Chinese. A german company could buy it instead.

> And while I know basically nothing about Indian law I'm fairly certain they have a much better legal argument in the US as well.

That is making a lot of assumptions (I don't why they banned it, but I'm sure their reason must be better than the USA's...because they are India and the USA is worse?).

When I disagree with a "TikTok ban", I'm defending my right to install what I want on my phone/computer/etc. I don't even use TikTok, but I think this sets a shitty precedent.

If the problem with TikTok is data collection, we should legislate bounds on all data collection and make everyone safer. If the problem with TikTok is addictive algorithmic feeds, we should legislate limits on those for all platforms and probably improve everyone's life.

think it sets a shitty precedent that anyone from any country and distribute whatever weird product they want to and as long as people want it. if it isnt addressed.

maybe i would think differently if it wasnt banned everywhere else. and china didnt ban every western tech company.

isis recruitment apps, wholesale fent stright from china apps. whatever its my right! going against something blindly just because you want the freedom to do it whether or not you will is odd no? shouldnt you use context.

Hmmm......

Nice spin playing on the hacker ethos here.

Although information is in its name, it gets its full meaning from its suffix. MISinformation is the missing of information or the mis-leading of an audience by spinning purposefully false rhetoric and delivering arguments for a false narrativvve.

It is very closely related to propaganda, but with a different aim. The aim here is not to have someone look good but to destabelize and subvert.

So although it is containing information in its name, neither it nor propaganda can be labeled information.

Who would want to consume lies freely anyways?

Also, nice addendum of the first amendment btw., the right of US citizens to express their opinions is not being curtailed here. It is just a medium that is under scrutiny and, I might add, for a very very good reason.

I'm not really spinning anything. This is likely the defense TikTok will be using in court. The 1st amendment covers the right to receive information, and it's funny you bring up propaganda because it has even been ruled it covers the right to receive foreign propaganda:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General

There should be some kind of reciprocity though. If Idaho didn’t allow drivers holding California drivers license to drive in Idaho, I’m sure California will swiftly ban drivers with Idaho licenses in California as well.

If U.S. companies can’t operate in China PR, China PR companies should not have any expectation of unfettered access to U.S. markets.

Also, corporations are NOT people, no matter what SCOTUS says.

We can't reciprocate, because Americans have rights that the Chinese don't have. By reciprocating we weaken our rights.