Re:TikTok goes dark in the US
by sodality2 on Sunday January 19, 2025 @12:14PM
(#42759001)
I think that considering TikTok's shop feature, it would be, but to me the dictionary definition of "the business of buying and selling commodities, products, or services; commerce" wouldn't apply to a free social media app otherwise. It lacks the critical transactional nature.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:TikTok goes dark in the US
by TulliusCicero on Sunday January 19, 2025 @12:17PM
(#42759037)
> It lacks the critical transactional nature.
I'm sorry, what? You realize they're still making money off you, right?
I don't think "if the product is free, then you are the product" is 100% right, but it's not entirely wrong either.
A business' offerings being ad-supported doesn't somehow stop them from being commercial in nature. Hence: trade.
I guess it would be a form of countertrade of attention for content. Nonetheless I don't think a "trade" of social media content and ads should be something that is within the government's scope to ban. If TikTok was made ad-free, would that change your argument?
Re:TikTok goes dark in the US
by TulliusCicero on Sunday January 19, 2025 @12:49PM
(#42759399)
That you don't consider it trade is irrelevant. It is trade, and trade has always been within the scope of the government -- every government, really -- to regulate.
> If TikTok was made ad-free, would that change your argument?
I think as long as TikTok is generating revenue -- or even plans to in the future, as sometimes happens for startups -- it'd count as trade yeah.