The US gov will do nothing to regulate US owned social networks because they're doing for free the work that the government wants to do itself: collect as much data as possible from each individual. The separation between Meta's collected data and government is just one judicial request away. That's why the US gov hates other countries having this power.

More specifically the ban is because of the platform being used to support Palestine. There are public recordings of congressmen openly and plainly saying so.

Many other platforms have been used for that for even longer, and none of them are in danger of being banned. I don't think this is the real reason, if there is even a singular reason.

I believe the singular reason is that TikTok is controlled by the CCP and they use it as a tool to further increase political and social division by manipulating the algorithm.

This is evidenced by the fact that ByteDance could've sold TikTok in the US for a huge amount of money to comply with the recent legislation, but the Chinese government won't allow the sale. They aren't interested in the money, which to me sounds like they only ever cared about the data and influence.

Side note: I used Perplexity to summarize the recent events to make sure I'm not totally talking out my butt :). Just a theory though, happy to be proven wrong!

Exactly, even when banned in the US, TikTok (though a lot less valuable business) can still be used to do influence outside the US.

If it was a business they would have sold it.

> TikTok is controlled by the CCP

By that logic, every single Chinese company is controlled by the CCP by law.

X is controlled by Musk… :)

First, they are american platforms, and already do a lot of filtering. It's not easy to ban an American platform either, and there is more leverage to twist their arm.

Second, how does your comment change the fact that there are multiple politicians on record saying this is why they are going after tik tok?

I repeat, there are recordings of congressmen openly saying this is why it needs to be banned and whipping votes on that basis. It’s not a theory. I remember a specific quote “we’re missing it” i.e. congress was not understanding where the pro-Palestinian sentiment was coming from.

I hear what you're saying, but I still don't think that's the real reason. Maybe that's a reason that they were told by someone else, and now it has become their reason, but I don't think it is the most important reason this is going on in the first place. I think it's more about having control over the content Americans see, and/or not letting adversarial countries have similar control over Americans.

It can still be both- in the sense that once a precedent is set using the these additional ideological and geopolitical motivations as momentum, maybe there will be an appetite for further algorithm regulations.

As a tech person who already understood the system, it's refreshing that I now often see the comment "I need to change my algorithm"- meaning, I can shape the parameters of what X/Twitter / Instagram/ YouTube / TikTok shows me in my feed.

I think there's growing meta-awareness (that I see as comments within these platforms) that there is "healthy" content and that the apps themselves manipulate their user's behavior patterns.

Hopefully there's momentum building that people perceive this as a public health issue.

These bans done for political purposes (ie see ADL/AIPAC's "We have a big TikTok problem" leaked audio, and members of our own congress stating that this is what motivates the regulations) won't lead to greater freedoms over algorithms. It is the opposite direction - more state control over which algorithms its citizens are allowed to see

The mental health angle of support for the bans is the way the change gets accepted by the public, not a motivating goal or direction for the next regulations

Yea, it might be naive to think the government will act in the interest of the consumer (although it has happened before)- but at least maybe it'll continue the conversation of users themselves....

THis situation is another data point and is a net good for society (whether or not the ban sticks).

Discussion around (for example) the technical implementation of content moderation being inherently political (i.e., Meta and Twitter) will be good for everyone.

> bans done for political purposes

You want a political body to make decisions apolitically?

> mental health angle of support

This was de minimis. The support was start to finish from national security angles. There was some cherry-on-top AIPAC and protectionist talk. But the votes were got because TikTok kept lying about serious stuff [1] while Russia reminded the world of the cost of appeasement.

[1] https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/services/files/76E769A8-3ED...

I know the state didn't do it or say they did it for mental health purposes, I'm responding to the reasons given here for supporting these regulations

BTW you're the one who cast doubt on me for suggesting UnitedHealth is incentivized to raise prices to get around profit caps, which turned out to be exactly the case despite your sense-making of the rules in place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716428

> you're the one who cast doubt on me for suggesting UnitedHealth is incentivized to raise prices to get around profit caps, which turned out to be exactly the case despite your sense-making of the rules in place

Sorry, could you link to my comment?

The Tik Tok divestment law was passed by overwhelmingly by both houses of the duly elected Congress. At the time, a majority of Americans polled supported the law, while a minority opposed it: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/more-support-than-oppose-tik....

In a democracy, this is how "society decides" what's in the "public good." This is not a case where legislators are going behind the public's back, hiding something they know they public would oppose. Proponents of the law have been clear in public about what the law would do and what the motivations for the law are. There is nothing closer to "society decides" than Congress overwhelmingly passing a law after making a public case for what the law would do.

Yes, they're doing it for "ideological and geopolitical reasons"--but those things are important to society! Americans are perfectly within their rights to enact legislation, through their duly elected representatives, simply on the basis of "fuck China."

100% agreed, unfortunately. There is truth in sayings like "the customer doesn't know what's best for them"... I think because they are often simply not informed or intelligent enough.

Most people are sufficiently informed and intelligent. They simply don't (1) care about the things you care about; or (2) don't agree with you that your preferred approaches will bring about desired outcomes.

> Most people are sufficiently informed and intelligent.

Sorry but I don't believe this in the slightest.

This may in some ways be technically correct, but it is also true that in a democracy, the elite make decisions with the support of the people through manufactured consent. This process involves the manipulation of the populace through mass media, to intentionally misinform and influence them.

One could take the position that this process is so flawed as to be illegitimate. In this case it would be a valid position to believe that society had not fairly decided these things, and they were instead decided by a certain class of people and pushed on to the rest of us.

See: A Propaganda Model, by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/consent01/

What interventions could you not justify using this logic?

What a strange question. The interventions which would be unjustified are too numerous to list.

That's the notion of "false consciousness" that Marxists trot out to justify why they're right even though people don't agree with them. It's a tool for academics to justify imposing themselves as right-thinking elites who know better than the unwashed masses.

I disagree strongly with any authoritarian rule, but it is probably correct that the masses don’t actually know the best way to run society. That doesn’t mean we need to impose rule, it means we need to understand manufacturing consent (which is a distinct concept from false consciousness and well supported by the facts), it means we need to combat manufactured consent and better educate people.

Yeah, the ban is interesting because it’s happened before (company being forced to sell or leave), but never to a product used at this scale. There are allegedly 120M daily active users in the US alone. That’s more than a third of Americans using it every day.

While many have a love hate relationship with it, there are many who love it. I know people who aren’t too sad, because it’ll break their addiction, and others who are making really decent money as content creators on it. So generally, you’re exactly right. “Society” is not lashing back at TikTok. Maybe some are lashing back at American social media companies (eg some folks leaving Twitter and meta products).

But if we wanted to actually protect our citizens, we’d enact strong data privacy laws, where companies don’t own your data — you do. And can’t spy on you or use that data without your permission. This would solve part of the problem with TikTok.

While data privacy laws would be good, I don’t see how it would help with TikTok since they have no reason to actually follow the laws when CCP comes calling.

By “this” I think they meant this moment in time rather than the ban being a result of societal scrutiny.

agree, it was just a shakedown and money grab.

some US oligarchs wanted to buy tiktok at deep discount while it was private, and make money off of making it public company

Why would it be sold at a deep discount?

About 45% of the US population uses TikTok and 63% of teens aged 13 to 17 report using TikTok, with 57% of them using the app daily

Hell of a product, there would be a crazy bidding war for that kind of engagement

Because if the Chinese government actually is using it or plans to use it as a propaganda tool there is no amount of money they would accept. The fact that it wasn't sold to a US company offers credibility to the fact that the product is useless to China if it's controlled by a US company and they wanted to keep the data they learned about addiction to themselves. Also probably wanted to build some outrage among young users for the government banning their favorite app

The sell or be banned part, instead of just banned, was most certainly lobbied for by the US social media companies hoping to get it on the off chance it had served its purpose, wasn't as useful as China had hoped, or the slim chance they really did just want Americans to copy dance trends.

In a fire sale the seller has no leverage.

The seller doesn't need any leverage if there are many interested buyers

If you have to get a sale done, it will absolutely create a discount on the price. This is regardless of the interest — all parties know you have a time limit. Yes you may still do a sale quickly and the price may still be at a premium to your last funding round or whatever you want to use as a mark to market, but it will be at a discount to what you could have gotten.

if US government says who is allowed to buy and buyers collude they can easily not fight a bidding war and lowball instead

Can you give an example of how the most eligible buyers might collude in a way that benefits them all equally, so that this would happen?

For me, it's very hard to conceive of any concrete way that would work. It's a brand, some partnerships, and a network of users that would all go to whatever buyer, and would give that buyer a huge benefit over their existing domestic competitors. So under what circumstances would those domestic competitors allow that instead of aggresively trying to secure it for themselves?

I'm open to believing you, I just don't see what you have in mind.

Why do they need to benefit all equally?

Campaign with the president, offer large amounts of money to the presidents campaign, donate huge sums to a small inauguration party, and then just be picked to get it at a deep discount. The entire point of bribes is that corruption let's you get away with things at a lesser cost. You just screw over everyone else except for the bribe receiver.

only very few rich people can mobilize financial and political capital to pull off tiktok purchase.

Larry Ellison (since he is CIA/MIC friendly and tiktok is already running on Oracle cloud)

Zuck has too much conflict to acquire tiktok, but other oligarchs like Musk/bezos/gates can pull it off, given their recent meetings with Trump

> only very few rich people can mobilize financial and political capital to pull off tiktok purchase

Why do you assume only a natural person can buy TikTok? Why do you assume you need political capital?

The law doesn’t provide that much executive deference in enforcement.

Elon musk is an example of acquisition of global social network. Political capital is needed because the tiktok question is politicized heavily (national security as a reason).

Plus FTC will review the acquisition process as well.

Do you have a counter example?

> FTC will review the acquisition process as well

Why?

> Political capital is needed because the tiktok question is politicized heavily (national security as a reason)

This is entirely meaningless. You don’t need political capital to maintain the status quo.

> Do you have a counter example?

To your hypothetical? My example is the law. FACA is tightly defined. Bytedance needs to divest to a non-FAC to return to the status quo. Trump could do something else to fuck with them. But that’s true of anyone anywhere.

Hart-Scott-Rodino Improvements Act requires FTC to approve all large M&A deals + DoJ needs to do antitrust review

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

HSR is incredibly routine and politically insulated. It’s closer to a filing than actual review.

except when the government decides to intervene and reject the transaction. See, this seems like routine, but ultimately it gives the government an option to cancel transaction they dont like and they can always cite some bogus reason like "national security" and use racist pretext like ethnicity of the CEO or whatever

> it gives the government an option to cancel transaction they dont like

Delay. It’s not a deferential review.

> if US government says who is allowed to buy

It doesn’t. The courts do. TikTok could be sold to a Hungarian businessman. As long as it can’t be proved they aren’t controlled by China, they should be allowed to reënter app stores.

Are the courts not US government? Do you think there isn't any collusion between Supreme Court and the other branches of government?

> Are the courts not US government?

Generally speaking, we tend to refer to governments in countries with independent judiciaries as being separate from their courts. The same way we refer to the government in parliamentary democracies separately from their parliaments. (Or governments separately from a country’s people, even though one is a subset of the other.)

> Do you think there isn't any collusion between Supreme Court and the other branches of government?

Not super relevant here. This SCOTUS barely upheld the ban with Bytedance as the owner.

> Not super relevant here. This SCOTUS barely upheld the ban with Bytedance as the owner.

Given that the Court has been lobbied by billionaires, I find really hard to believe they wouldn't help an US company to buy it instead of a Hungarian or any other one.

How would that collusion work?

syndication. Pool political and financial capital together to win the bidding from smaller less connected buyers, and share the final ownership

That seems like it would work, but how would they portion out the final ownership? Maybe the person who bid the most could get the most shares?

Rich people can always find a common ground and negotiate deals among themselves, its what they do every day.

As a rich person I’d rather get 30% of tiktok with 99% certainty by committing 30% of capital needed, rather than 100% of tiktok with 30% certainty and committing 100% of capital needed.

That's because "being hooked" is not why it is being banned. It's banned because people are hooked on it and an adversarial foreign power has the ability to use it for their own gain.

Which is why a viable solution for TikTok was selling it to a US company. If it was just about the population "being hooked", a sale would not be an acceptable outcome.

> They have already allowed the good big tech companies to get people hooked as much as they want

To sell you shoes. Not for whatever nightmarish future application of this technology and relationship between private sector and the state represents: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/15/documents...