Apple Removes TikTok From App Store on iPhones and iPads in the U.S.

[I7guy]

Nanny is nanny. If the argument is "let the owners of the computers decide for themselves"- and that WAS OPs argument- playing the "security" card is no better than Apple spinning "security" as the reason to preserve a single Company Store model. See the sameness?

Ah so let’s forget the nuances and make a 50,000 ft baseline generalization.

No it’s not all or nothing or black and white and to me I don’t see the sameness.

As far as apple spinning “security” morning a blanket generalization relative to the topic. Apple was not deemed to be a security threat to the US.

But thanks for illustrating how different we see something by changing who is in the role of nanny. That was exactly the point of my post.

That point if your post was baseline generalizations ignoring nuance.

 

[anthogag]

Do they have the attention span to last 30 seconds on a topic?

If 30 seconds is an eternity they can switch to 15 second commercials.

 

[Saturn007]

When Trump wanted to ban TikTok back in 2020 every single liberal in the country cried out "This is fascism and Xenophobia!"

🙈 ❌ 👎🏽 😂

What malarkey! Hyperbole and strawman arguments showcase a weak position.

 

[DMG35]

🙈 ❌ 👎🏽 😂

What malarkey! Hyperbole and strawman arguments showcase a weak position.

Dude, of course It was hyperbole. I don't know what every liberal in the country thought of it. I do know that many were against it until the Biden administration was all for it:

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/trump-tiktok-ban-china-microsoft-20200804.html

Perspective | Banning TikTok and stoking Sinophobia isn’t likely to get Trump reelected

The flaw is in Trump's strategy.

www.washingtonpost.com

Trump’s TikTok Ban Is All About Fueling a Cold War With China

Trump's TikTok ban isn't about protecting digital security. It's simply a bid to rile up his base by stoking nationalism and anti-Chinese sentiment.

jacobin.com

Racism, McCarthyism and Trump’s attack on TikTok - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

I could go on and on and on.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Ah so let’s forget the nuances and make a 50,000 ft baseline generalization.

No it’s not all or nothing or black and white and to me I don’t see the sameness.

As far as apple spinning “security” morning a blanket generalization relative to the topic. Apple was not deemed to be a security threat to the US.

That point if your post was baseline generalizations ignoring nuance.

Again, nanny is nanny. If anyone feels very passionately that this is none of the GOVs business- that owners of computers should decide what they want to install or not install on their own computers- it shouldn't matter who is cast as nanny. In this example, it's GOV as nanny. In other threads, it's Apple as nanny. It should be the same if it was some story about Samsung/Google/Microsoft/Spotify/Netflix/etc acting as nanny. I suspect we would have very passionate opinions against Apple competitors acting as nannies too. We certainly argue that GOVs should be taking actions against the rest while simultaneously arguing how wrong it is for GOVs to be taking actions against Apple.

As you illustrate yourself, we are quick to bend what can sometimes be passionate stances for or against something when the same can be applied to Apple. Apparently, if Apple wants to nanny, we absolutely should be nannied. Anyone else want to nanny? Freedom of the people! Freedom of choice! Let us decide!

No surprise. I know how things work. But always entertaining to see it actually applied.

 

[I7guy]

Again, nanny is nanny. If anyone feels very passionately that this is none of the GOVs business- that owners of computers should decide what they want to install or not install on their own computers- it shouldn't matter who is cast as nanny. In this example, it's GOV as nanny. In other threads, it's Apple as nanny. It should be the same if it was some story about Samsung/Google/Microsoft/Spotify/Netflix/etc acting as nanny. I suspect we would have very passionate opinions against Apple competitors acting as nannies too. We certainly argue that GOVs should be taking actions against the rest while simultaneously arguing how wrong it is for GOVs to be taking actions against Apple.

As you illustrate yourself, we are quick to bend what can sometimes be passionate stances for or against something when the same can be applied to Apple. Apparently, if Apple wants to nanny, we absolutely should be nannied. Anyone else want to nanny? Freedom of the people! Freedom of choice! Let us decide!

No surprise. I know how things work. But always entertaining to see it actually applied.

That’s a common internet “debating” technique. Use the lowest common denominator or ignore the nuance.

“Nanny is not nanny” It’s a false equivalence, which is why you believe that a perceived security threat are the same. Let’s not let hyperbole and straw man arguments get in the way of a good debate.

 

[Krizoitz]

Imagine that. Democrats even banned social media and free speech in the name of national security. Good luck with that one. There is not place to go but down hill with this.

Neither social media nor free speech have been banned.

Try again.

 

[CEmajr]

The condition for the 90-day extension is that ByteDance must declare an intent to sale. The 90 days is to give them more time to sell. If they still are dead set on a refusal to sell then they’re don’t get the 90 days. The only way they continue to operate long term is with them selling or Congress voting to overturn the law (highly unlikely).

The national security risk of the ban is the fact that TikTok has become a large media company. Media has the power to influence public opinion and effectively influence foreign policy and even elections. The US government can censor certain viewpoints on all major social media aside from TikTok. For those who don’t grasp how social media works, Chinese ownership of TikTok is like China or Russia owning NBC, ABC, or CBS in pre-internet days. Something the US won’t allow.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Apple does no such thing. It puts restrictions on what types of apps are allowed to be listed on the App Store, yes, but that’s no different than any store choosing what products to offer or not offer.

But it’s your phone, you’re welcome to do whatever you want with it - they’re not telling you that you can’t - they’re just not obligated to help you do it.

But you can't install software that isn't from the app store therefore they are telling free American citizens what they can and can't do on their phones.

 

[surferfb]

But you can't install software that isn't from the app store therefore they are telling free American citizens what they can and can't do on their phones.

Nothing is stopping you from jailbreaking, writing your own app in Xcode, or using web apps etc. They’re not telling you that you can’t, they’re just not obligated to help you or make it easy for you.

They’re also super up front about it, and there are fantastic phones without those restrictions if that’s important to you.

 

[I7guy]

But you can't install software that isn't from the app store therefore they are telling free American citizens what they can and can't do on their phones.

This is a circular argument.

 

[transmaster]

I could understand the laminations and sack cloth if they were trying to ban bacon, I would be out in the streets. But TikTok give me a break.

 

[Ctrlos]

This is such a tired argument. Guess what, this isn't China. Let's take a look at some dumb things that China bans:


Winnie the Pooh

Video games that show fighting

Google

Gambling

Peppa Pig

Time Travel shows and movies

Alice in Wonderland

YouTube

Putting your window down in a taxi


That argument holds exactly ZERO water. China bans things because the Govt controls everything the people do. We are a free country and the Govt has or is supposed to have limits on what they can do.

China banned those things thanks to it's authoritarian government. The USA banned Tiktok because of it's links to China.

The west should ban all social media as a key cause of the loneliness and mental health epidemics.

 

[Ctrlos]

Social media is much more harmful than you imply here. And in the next four years nothing will happen either. Facebook already fired its fact checkers because Trump thrives on misinformation.

With any luck the EU will kick it's ass.

 

[DMG35]

China banned those things thanks to it's authoritarian government. The USA banned Tiktok because of it's links to China.

The west should ban all social media as a key cause of the loneliness and mental health epidemics.

Lol you can’t move the goalpost to try and fit your narrative. You literally said “China bans Tik Tok” as a way of saying that China knows it isn’t safe. China bans a lot of things for no reason because they want to.

 

[d686546s]

The government is banning ticktok due to security concerns. The eu has implemented bad regulations nationalizing apple assets. See the difference ?

Ah so let’s forget the nuances and make a 50,000 ft baseline generalization.

No it’s not all or nothing or black and white and to me I don’t see the sameness.

Not for nothing, but that lack of nuance was frequently deployed by yourself and others in the EU context, as also illustrated above.

Maybe this could be a general reminder to look at the nuances even where it isn't convenient to one's own position?

 

[DMG35]

The app is back up and running.

 

[I7guy]

Not for nothing, but that lack of nuance was frequently deployed by yourself and others in the EU context, as also illustrated above.

Maybe this could be a general reminder to look at the nuances even where it isn't convenient to one's own position?

the dma is bad legislation. Trying to compare a lack of nuance in an opinion of legislation to another poster stating some thing about “nanny states” is a false equivalence. So yeah…

 

[Jimmy Bubbles]

TikTok is back. Thanks President Trump!

 

[d686546s]

the dma is bad legislation. Trying to compare a lack of nuance in an opinion of legislation to another poster stating some thing about “nanny states” is a false equivalence. So yeah…

You are saying things that aren't true to make your point because ignoring the nuance suits your argument is what I'm saying.

The rest is between the two of you.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Nothing is stopping you from jailbreaking, writing your own app in Xcode, or using web apps etc. They’re not telling you that you can’t, they’re just not obligated to help you or make it easy for you.

They’re also super up front about it, and there are fantastic phones without those restrictions if that’s important to you.

The government are being super upfront about banning TikTok. I don't see the difference.

 

[nfl46]

I mean I know he says that, but the law is pretty clear, and the Apple and Google can’t just ignore the law. While I know he can give them an extension, based on the text of the law I’m not sure he can without lying to Congress.

Lol. The US laws are a joke. We all knew it would come back quickly.

TikTok is partially back online in the US, but it’s not back in the App Store yet

Is TikTok working for you?

www.theverge.com

 

[transmaster]

Lol. The US laws are a joke. We all knew it would come back quickly.

TikTok is partially back online in the US, but it’s not back in the App Store yet

Is TikTok working for you?

www.theverge.com

Trump is giving TikTok more time. They thought they were going to win in the Supreme Court because of their arrogance and the CCP; nothing was done for months. They lost, and now it is fire-sale time. The boom gets lowered in 90 days. There are several people interested in it. The most obvious buyer is "He who must not be named." But Bezos is rumored to be interested, as well.

 

[surferfb]

The government are being super upfront about banning TikTok. I don't see the difference.

One is a one of many companies offering mobile computers for sale. The other is a nuclear powered nation, with a standing army, arguably the most powerful in the world, that can throw its citizens in jail for breaking the law.

To put it another way, if you don’t like Apple’s rules, not buying a iPhone (or buying a different device the next time you’re in the market for a phone) is easy. Deciding you don’t want to be American anymore because you don’t like its rules is decidedly less easy, nigh impossible unless you’re wealthy enough to afford a golden visa and can uproot your entire life away from friends, family, and coworkers to go live abroad.

So there is a massive difference.

 

[jonblatho]

Dude, of course It was hyperbole. I don't know what every liberal in the country thought of it. I do know that many were against it until the Biden administration was all for it:

I'm liberal, I was against it then, I was against it last year when the ban became law, and I'm against it today. Amazing things can happen when you follow a set of principles instead of politicians. My view is generally that, aside from content currently deemed not protected by the First Amendment, the state should not be telling people what's okay to look at on the internet.

Citing Jacobin — a socialist (not liberal) magazine — is an interesting choice. Their publication seems to have been strongly opposed to the ban last year when it was on its way through Congress, too, and remains opposed today.

Citing the Global Times is an even more interesting choice. Of course the CCP's daily tabloid is going to be opposed to a TikTok ban.