TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by vivekd on Sunday January 19, 2025 @05:00PM (#42762387)

I think what you raise is something the courts should consider if the government were trying to shut down a platform because of what it's users were doing on it. But it's not a live issue in this case. There is no allegation that the US seeks to suppress TikTok because of what Americans are posting on it. TikTok isn't saying the government is doing that and I don't believe the government is seeking to control the speech of TikTok users. The consern seems to be more about who controls the algorithm and data collection (a foreign state with adversarial interests) and it seems to me that it has nothing to do with anything Americans are posting on TikTok. I mean the content on TikTok isn't all that political or revolutionary

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by umanwizard on Sunday January 19, 2025 @05:54PM (#42762935)

> There is no allegation that the US seeks to suppress TikTok because of what Americans are posting on it.

Of course there is. It’s obvious that a huge chunk of the momentum behind the TikTok ban stems from a desire to suppress anti-Israel content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by josephcsible on Sunday January 19, 2025 @06:49PM (#42763370)

If that were the case, then why was ByteDance given the option to divest?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by thrawa8387336 on Sunday January 19, 2025 @09:01PM (#42764221)

How is that incompatible? Who would control it

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by noirbot on Sunday January 19, 2025 @10:29PM (#42764695)

Because the drafters knew they wouldn't/couldn't/aren't allowed to/would only be able to do so to someone more under the thumb of the US government?

The actual purpose of a law or system is the actual outcome of it and not what it's dressed up to say its purpose is. A law that says "we don't allow mosques unless they're owned by people not descended from countries on a terrorism watch list" is still an infringement of the freedom of religion. We don't have to pretend there's good faith here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by josephcsible on Monday January 20, 2025 @12:40AM (#42765323)

> Because the drafters knew they wouldn't/couldn't/aren't allowed to/would only be able to do so to someone more under the thumb of the US government?

This is at best vacuously true. Since China is the most powerful adversary of the US, you'd say that literally anyone else is more under the thumb of the US government than they are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by umanwizard on Sunday January 19, 2025 @11:09PM (#42764894)

Because if they were owned by an American company it’s much less likely they’d allow that content to go viral.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by josephcsible on Monday January 20, 2025 @12:07AM (#42765158)

The law didn't require the new owner to be in America. Anywhere other than Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia would have been allowed.

[ Parent | on HN ]