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

[JPack]

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.

There will be no sale. ByteDance already said there's no sale. The company will rearrange the furniture to make it appear something happened.

Nobody is dumb enough to buy without the algorithm. It could be transplanted to a new competitor app immediately after the sale, which would make the purchase worth $0. That's like buying Apple without silicon or iOS.

 

[surferfb]

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.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum or this particular law, the idea that a President can decide to ignore a law recently passed by broad bipartisan majorities in Congress and confirmed constitutional by the Supreme Court literally days ago ought to be a glaring warning alarm.

 

[JPack]

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum or this particular law, the idea that a President can decide to ignore a law recently passed by broad bipartisan majorities in Congress and confirmed constitutional by the Supreme Court literally days ago ought to be a glaring warning alarm.

The idea that bipartisan groups arbitrarily said, "this app, we determined it's bad for you" without showing any evidence is even more scary.

 

[wigby]

They better keep it as is, these kids need to grow up

So do the adults.

 

[surferfb]

The idea that bipartisan groups arbitrarily said, "this app, we determined it's bad for you" without showing any evidence is even more scary.

Respectfully, no it’s not. Congress passes laws all the time that rely on classified information. (I worked for a Congressman on the intelligence committee). The people of their districts/states have chosen to trust their judgement to make those decisions for them.

Deciding “the way the US has worked for almost 250 years doesn’t apply anymore because someone gave me a campaign contribution” is significantly more scary.

 

[Ctrlos]

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.

Who said China banned Tiktok?! Douyin is home to a lot of educational content.

 

[furbzv1]

Well that was fast. Not even 24 hours. Don’t know who needs to grow up, the kids or the adults.

 

[xJustxMegx]

Looks like TikTok is back in the US, sad.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

I do not like social networks, and I have never used TikTok. However, to me, banning this application is very contrary to what I believed made the USA unique. Facebook and Google are less dangerous when they collect this exact same data somehow. The only realistic threat I have heard is that perhaps TikTok is used to propagandize to Americans. Personally, I think TikTok is a brain rotting waste like the other social apps are, but that is just my perspective.

 

[transmaster]

Who said China banned Tiktok?! Douyin is home to a lot of educational content.

TikTok is not behind the Bamboo Firewall, Douyin is.

 

[jonblatho]

The people of their districts/states have chosen to trust their judgement to make those decisions for them.

Those people are also well within their rights to question and strongly disagree with those decisions, including after they’ve been made, and even after they’ve been enacted. You probably strongly support the congressman you worked for as well as most/all of his positions, which is well within your rights, but to me he’s just another politician — even if I voted for him (or would have, given the opportunity). He is a politician, not my parent, and as an adult I don’t want or need parental supervision.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, honestly, I can’t think of anything in that classified briefing that, to me, would justify what amounts to the most sweeping act of internet censorship in American history. Keep it off your own devices by choice or off government devices by rule if you’d like, by all means. Otherwise, if it’s so unthinkable, then let’s see even a morsel of evidence for why it’s needed, straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of “trust me bro.” Yeah, trusting a politician is a great idea.

 

[JPack]

Those people are also well within their rights to question and strongly disagree with those decisions, including after they’ve been made, and even after they’ve been enacted. You probably strongly support the congressman you worked for as well as most/all of his positions, which is well within your rights, but to me he’s just another politician — even if I voted for him (or would have, given the opportunity). He is a politician, not my parent, and as an adult I don’t want or need parental supervision.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, honestly, I can’t think of anything in that classified briefing that, to me, would justify what amounts to the most sweeping act of internet censorship in American history. Keep it off your own devices by choice or off government devices by rule if you’d like, by all means. Otherwise, if it’s so unthinkable, then let’s see even a morsel of evidence for why it’s needed, straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of “trust me bro.” Yeah, trusting a politician is a great idea.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

 

[surferfb]

Those people are also well within their rights to question and strongly disagree with those decisions, including after they’ve been made, and even after they’ve been enacted. You probably strongly support the congressman you worked for as well as most/all of his positions, which is well within your rights, but to me he’s just another politician — even if I voted for him (or would have, given the opportunity). He is a politician, not my parent, and as an adult I don’t want or need parental supervision.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, honestly, I can’t think of anything in that classified briefing that, to me, would justify what amounts to the most sweeping act of internet censorship in American history. Keep it off your own devices by choice or off government devices by rule if you’d like, by all means. Otherwise, if it’s so unthinkable, then let’s see even a morsel of evidence for why it’s needed, straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of “trust me bro.” Yeah, trusting a politician is a great idea.

I’d argue there is enough reason to require TikTok to be sold without anything classified being shared. Ben Thompson did a great explainer back in 2020, I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, but it is very long. Here is a key passage:

After all, this certainly wasn’t the first time that TikTok has seemed to act politically: the service censored #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd, blocked a teenager discussing China’s genocide in Xinjiang, and blocked a video of Tank Man. The Guardian published TikTok guidelines that censored Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the Falun Gong, and I myself demonstrated that TikTok appeared to be censoring the Hong Kong protests and Houston Rockets basketball team.

The point, though, is not just censorship, but its inverse: propaganda. TikTok’s algorithm, unmoored from the constraints of your social network or professional content creators, is free to promote whatever videos it likes, without anyone knowing the difference. TikTok could promote a particular candidate or a particular issue in a particular geography, without anyone — except perhaps the candidate, now indebted to a Chinese company — knowing. You may be skeptical this might happen, but again, China has already demonstrated a willingness to censor speech on a platform banned in China; how much of a leap is it to think that a Party committed to ideological dominance will forever leave a route directly into the hearts and minds of millions of Americans untouched?

 

[jonblatho]

I’d argue there is enough reason to require TikTok to be sold without anything classified being shared. Ben Thompson did a great explainer back in 2020, I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, but it is very long. Here is a key passage:

After all, this certainly wasn’t the first time that TikTok has seemed to act politically: the service censored #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd, blocked a teenager discussing China’s genocide in Xinjiang, and blocked a video of Tank Man. The Guardian published TikTok guidelines that censored Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the Falun Gong, and I myself demonstrated that TikTok appeared to be censoring the Hong Kong protests and Houston Rockets basketball team.

The point, though, is not just censorship, but its inverse: propaganda. TikTok’s algorithm, unmoored from the constraints of your social network or professional content creators, is free to promote whatever videos it likes, without anyone knowing the difference. TikTok could promote a particular candidate or a particular issue in a particular geography, without anyone — except perhaps the candidate, now indebted to a Chinese company — knowing. You may be skeptical this might happen, but again, China has already demonstrated a willingness to censor speech on a platform banned in China; how much of a leap is it to think that a Party committed to ideological dominance will forever leave a route directly into the hearts and minds of millions of Americans untouched?

I fully do not care what the platform allows or doesn’t allow, or promotes or doesn’t promote via its algorithm, within reasonable bounds (e.g., no harbor for terroristic threats or CSAM). I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to care, either, certainly not to the extent of banning an algorithm or content moderation it doesn’t like.

 

[surferfb]

I fully do not care what the platform allows or doesn’t allow, or promotes or doesn’t promote via its algorithm, within reasonable bounds (e.g., no harbor for terroristic threats or CSAM). I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to care, either, certainly not to the extent of banning an algorithm or content moderation it doesn’t like.

They’re not banning the algorithm though, they’re just saying our geopolitical rival can’t own it. Which I think is reasonable. But I suspect we’re simply going to need to agree to disagree on that.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[jonblatho]

They’re not banning the algorithm though, they’re just saying our geopolitical rival can’t own it. Which I think is reasonable. But I suspect we’re simply going to need to agree to disagree on that.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

The legislation is effectively a ban because China’s obviously not going to sell the algorithm, certainly not now that Trump blinked first.

 

[surferfb]

The legislation is effectively a ban because China’s obviously not going to sell the algorithm, certainly not now that Trump blinked first.

Which I would argue is proof positive China shouldn’t be controlling it. But again, I suspect we just fundamentally disagree on this.

Cheers!

 

[JPack]

The legislation is effectively a ban because China’s obviously not going to sell the algorithm, certainly not now that Trump blinked first.

Even if nobody blinked, ByteDance wouldn't sell the code due to common business sense. U.S. TikTok revenue represents only 10% of total ByteDance numbers. Revenue in China is the lion's share. Not to mention TikTok can continue to operate globally. It's just the U.S. that's affected. Why would they sell the golden goose?

 

[jonblatho]

Which I would argue is proof positive China shouldn’t be controlling it.

Surely you’re aware that there exist many hypothetical foreign acquisitions of U.S. corporations where the federal government would step in and prevent or unwind the sale for purely economic reasons. Why would they allow it?

But yeah. Cheers!

 

[d686546s]

Which I would argue is proof positive China shouldn’t be controlling it.

Is it, though? I've never used TikTok, but it sounds like it was simply better than its American competitors in many ways, including its algorithm.

Refusing to sell it may well be evidence of a geopolitical motivation by China, but it may also simply be a business decision not to sell the Crown Jewels for access to the US market.

 

[JPack]

I’d argue there is enough reason to require TikTok to be sold without anything classified being shared. Ben Thompson did a great explainer back in 2020, I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, but it is very long. Here is a key passage:

After all, this certainly wasn’t the first time that TikTok has seemed to act politically: the service censored #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd, blocked a teenager discussing China’s genocide in Xinjiang, and blocked a video of Tank Man. The Guardian published TikTok guidelines that censored Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the Falun Gong, and I myself demonstrated that TikTok appeared to be censoring the Hong Kong protests and Houston Rockets basketball team.

The point, though, is not just censorship, but its inverse: propaganda. TikTok’s algorithm, unmoored from the constraints of your social network or professional content creators, is free to promote whatever videos it likes, without anyone knowing the difference. TikTok could promote a particular candidate or a particular issue in a particular geography, without anyone — except perhaps the candidate, now indebted to a Chinese company — knowing. You may be skeptical this might happen, but again, China has already demonstrated a willingness to censor speech on a platform banned in China; how much of a leap is it to think that a Party committed to ideological dominance will forever leave a route directly into the hearts and minds of millions of Americans untouched?

It's a private company. Have you ever see X/Twitter delete posts or shut down accounts? If you went to 9to5Mac and started discussing political news, you'd get trouble too. Nothing but a double standard.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Well that was

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.

There isn't really, nobody has to use Tiktok. Not sure why cat videos are viewed as such a threat.

Seems like American protectionism to me, exactly the kind of thing they complain about when US companies are subject to regulation in the EU.

 

[VisceralRealist]

Those people are also well within their rights to question and strongly disagree with those decisions, including after they’ve been made, and even after they’ve been enacted. You probably strongly support the congressman you worked for as well as most/all of his positions, which is well within your rights, but to me he’s just another politician — even if I voted for him (or would have, given the opportunity). He is a politician, not my parent, and as an adult I don’t want or need parental supervision.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, honestly, I can’t think of anything in that classified briefing that, to me, would justify what amounts to the most sweeping act of internet censorship in American history. Keep it off your own devices by choice or off government devices by rule if you’d like, by all means. Otherwise, if it’s so unthinkable, then let’s see even a morsel of evidence for why it’s needed, straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of “trust me bro.” Yeah, trusting a politician is a great idea.

This really sums it up for me. It is censorship, it sets a bad precedent, and I have not seen adequate justification for such. “China does it too” seems to be a recurring justification from those who support the ban on this forum, and is just about the most unconvincing argument one could muster.

 

[DownUnderDan]

The kids will be fine. Tell them to go outside and play.

 

[JPack]

Which I would argue is proof positive China shouldn’t be controlling it. But again, I suspect we just fundamentally disagree on this.

Cheers!

U.S. restricts export of certain AI chips and math software. Does that mean the U.S. is in control of NVIDIA and MATLAB?