TikTok is the primary source of brain-rot in 2024, please, somebody, change my mind.
Ok. Have you not heard of X, MAGA, or Truth Social?
Thankfully, I'm not forced to interact with any of those, it's not a problem here. Here in Australia, TikTok is everywhere, and I feel at times as if I'm the only one here that hasn't touched it, that doesn't stop my friends from ignoring the fact I've asked them countless times not to send tiktoks to me.
One of said friends is a nurse, one of the smartest people I know. She told me how to do CPR based on what she'd seen in a TikTok, as someone that's done the CPR training, and actually performed it, I was really upset that her knowledge had been overwritten in a very short time of her TikTok addiction. I'm finding such cases are becoming more and more common kately and it's terrifying.
This comment section is astounding.
If you think it’s good that congress passed a ban of a social media platform tied to a bill funding two foreign wars you’re either a fed or delusional.
Seriously. The real solution is comprehensive privacy protection and consumer information export controls for all companies operating within the US.
This whole thing is just going to give an American company the capability to use Tik Tok to spy on people and control information, which is barely better.
And then they'll likely sell the data to China anyway. Data brokers exist and make a fuck ton of money on us.
Reading through these comments... yikes guys. I use TikTok sometimes, and love the content it provides that YouTube does not provide. Seeing the straight up hate for the app, mixed with the misunderstanding of what the app CAN be if you actually use it, is chilling to say the least. If they were banning ALL social media apps, and their companies, I'd be all for this. As it is, I can not see why you would all be cheering so hard for TikTok to be sold to some American asshole, just for it to start getting enshittified, and then STILL sell your data to Russia, China, and anyone else who wants a slice. The fact you are all hating on TikTok so much, but not questioning our own American social media companies, and wanting them to be banned too, is frightening.
I've seen a few comments saying it is spyware. On iOS at least, there is an icon that pops up to let you know when an app is using your camera or microphone. Not only that, but when you start an app for the first time, it has to request to you the user if you want to allow it access to these things. I said no, of course, because when I first started using it, I fucking hated TikTok. Turns out, when you use it for like a week, it starts to get REALLY good at delivering content you want to see.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, as I'm sure plenty of you will disagree, complain, and then go on using your American owned social medias, that are still hoovering up and selling your data.
The only differences being that China wasn't making a cent out of me, nor do any of these equally shitty American social medias. Oh well, I guess we just really love our own little national narratives.
it doesn't sound like you understand global politics.
What are the odds this stands up in court? It seems like an easy legal victory for TikTok.
On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it's found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.
Lmao. Then bring an anti-trust case? That power is specifically in reference to that and requires the government to prove it's case in court. Not just make a declaration.
You're missing my point.
In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that's the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it's the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.
That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I'm wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn't apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I'm not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there's OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).
To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I'm saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it's not an obvious slam dunk.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
And the Anti-Trust laws were written that way because that's the Due Process the Constitution demands. The executive cannot just declare something punitive. That has been the standard for over 200 years.
Also, if there aren't rights for foreigners in the US then there aren't rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
In what way does that invalidate it as an example?
The executive cannot just declare something punitive.
CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.
Also, if there aren't rights for foreigners in the US then there aren't rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Bytedance isn't inside your borders and the constitution doesn't protect extra-nationals. There's a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.
You wouldn't be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn't critical infrastructure.
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
So again. Not personal use. Also, refunding an investment is entirely different than shutting down a business.
And LMAO. If Bytedance wasn't inside the borders then this wouldn't matter. Saying they aren't inside the borders is possibly the most hilarious bad faith thing I've seen in this entire debacle.
You wouldn't be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn't critical infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:
CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user's location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.
Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn't count as "critical infrastructure"?
(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
So again. Not personal use.
LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.
Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.
But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.
The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.
Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It's incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don't trade on any US stock exchanges).
TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).
The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn't occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it's that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.
Oh no the government said it was for national security! That's it folks pack it up. As everyone knows nobody has any rights once the President mentions the words National and Security together!
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn't apply?
Stop justifying Unconstitutional shit just because someone said the scary words.
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn't apply?
Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn't realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!
It seems like a lot of people think moves like this are about actual national security like congress claims,
It blows my fuckin mind now damn stupid the average American is
If social media apps exist to slurp up as much user info as possible, and they do, then it makes sense to be concerned about the government that they're subject to.
Why is it okay for domestic companies to collect the same data and sell it to China, then?
This shouldn't just affect foreign companies if it's about data collection. It should have been an actual privacy bill. US citizens' privacy will be no better after this.
It's not ok.
But the fact is that China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia are adversaries of the United States, and the US government is justified in its concern.
They may just pull out of the US completely
Even though i dont think banning tiktok is a good idea purely because of the concept, those boards are funny. "Tiktok changed my life for the better"
They're also all printed, and with the same font. I'm assuming it's a stock photo, but if that's from a real protest I don't trust those protestors.who the hell gets a protest sign printed?
Lots of protests actually. It's not hard.
Its because the company literally paid shills to stump for them in person, call Congress, etc.
literally paid shills
No *one outside of some influencers were paid lmao. People contacted Congress but they weren't paid, and a quick Google search brought up zero result of people being paid *outside of the influencers. So I'd love to see where you're sourcing this from.
Edit: Correction - about 30 influencers were paid to visit events for Tik Tok. I'll rescind saying that literally no one was paid: that's point is wrong. My main point was that average users weren't paid to call into Congress. And the vast majority that called in or have talked out against the ban did so of their own volition rather than being paid as implied by OP's comment
let me duckduckgo that for you
Literally the first result on ddg: https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-rally-washington-chew-testimony/
Other reports from different sources:
Its because the company literally paid shills to stump for them in person, call Congress, etc.
The way it was presented was that they paid average users to call Congress which is disingenuous. I'll admit I was wrong when I came to the influencers being paid for in person events, but that's only a smaller group of people and events. The vast majority were not paid and did so of their own volition.
Edit: Didn't realize OP and the replier were different people. That's also on me.
What are you downvoting me for? I didn't write that post lol...
BTW, you might want to update your correction: According to https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-rally-washington-chew-testimony/
While some influencers report paying their own airfare to Washington, everyone we talked to took the free hotel. It’s unclear precisely what folks were offered as part of the trip to Washington, but seemingly everyone got one perk or another. Beyond the more than 30 influencers in attendance, along with their travel buddies, WIRED counted 10 other people who were, in one way or another, at the Capitol on behalf of TikTok.
30 influencers and their plus ones and 10 other people are paid. These are only people that wired has talked to, so there might be more people being paid one way or another.
And "everyone we talked to took the free hotel": everyone wired has talked to has received some benefit from tiktok.
I don't really know the scale of the rally, but seeing the rally photo from different sources: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dc+tiktok+protest&iax=images&ia=images , it seem like most cameras are pointing towards the same 15 people, all with signs distributed by tiktok.
I don't think I will be as confident as you about the size of the protest. Even if there were 100 people there, that still means over 50% of the protesters received direct compensation from TikTok specifically for this protest.
I probably shouldnt be celebrating this but I am. I fucking despise Tiktok with a passion, I hate its users, its creators, I hate the short form content trend it started and its algorithm based content delivery systems that every other app copied but worse, I hate the sexualisation of minors and peddling that content to pedos, I hate the clout chasing in general, I hate tiktok trends and "challenged". and I hate the general brainrot it has caused.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.