TikTok Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Temporarily Block Upcoming January Ban

[B4U]

Meanwhile, this useless app is not even available in China.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

No matter your opinion of TikTok, letting this ban stand would set bad precedent for further restrictions of platforms on the internet.

The fact is that all of the supposed Chinese spying does not have evidence that has been shown publicly. Show us the evidence, then we can talk.

 

[steve09090]

No matter your opinion of TikTok, letting this ban stand would set bad precedent for further restrictions of platforms on the internet.

The fact is that all of the supposed Chinese spying does not have evidence that has been shown publicly. Show us the evidence, then we can talk.

A country can decide what it wants within its own borders. Who is Twitter, or TikTok or anyone to say what restrictions a country can place on them?

Examples:

Brazil banned Twitter (before Twitter caved in)​

Australia is banning children under 16 from Social Media and are also forcing social media to pay for news in their apps.​

Russia ban Facebook & China bans a whole lot more​

The only precedent being set is a country being allowed to exercise its own right to choose. The EU do it all the time.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

A country can decide what it wants within its own borders. Who is Twitter, or TikTok or anyone to say what restrictions a country can place on them?

Examples:

Brazil banned Twitter (before Twitter caved in)​

Australia is banning children under 16 from Social Media and are also forcing social media to pay for news in their apps.​

Russia ban Facebook & China bans a whole lot more​

The only precedent being set is a country being allowed to exercise its own right to choose. The EU do it all the time.

The difference is that the US has stronger free speech and private speech protections than many other countries. What other countries do is irrelevant to the laws in the US.

Also about the laws in other countries, those laws are the very ones I don't want to happen here.

I am against government ID checks for social media because it infringes on the constitutional right to anonymous speech (see Talley v. California and Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton for examples of this principle)

And I am against banning platforms altogether because the free flow of information on the internet should not be restricted by the state. The very regimes that you mention in China and Russia are some of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, and I don't want any of the stuff they have over here.

The only laws that should regulate the free flow of content on the internet are laws to protect people from direct physical harm, such as laws to prevent the production and proliferation of Child Sexual Abuse Material.

The free and open internet should be preserved and protected.

 

[maerz001]

Why is a Chinese company so obsessed with being available in a Foreign country. Tik tok isn’t wanted. Deal with it. Maybe Facebook can cry to the chinese Supreme Court constantly so it can be be available to Chinese? Google, as well?

Really?
Cos of ad revenue

 

[TigerNike23]

Ya know what? Just block all social media. Meta, X, TikTok, Reddit, Snap…

None of it is healthy for society anymore like it was 10 and 15 years ago. Everything now is designed to bring up engagement to show ads, so algorithms are designed to show shocking or ridiculous content (TikTok/X) or filter out political content (Meta/X) all to show ads. Remember how fun Facebook and Instagram were for like 5 years? How about Twitter in 2010? Reddit in 2015? That’s all gone now, all because of $$$$$$$$.

 

[steve09090]

The difference is that the US has stronger free speech and private speech protections than many other countries. What other countries do is irrelevant to the laws in the US.

Also about the laws in other countries, those laws are the very ones I don't want to happen here.

FYI, I don’t necessarily disagree with all of your comments, but note that it’s more complicated than you are suggesting.

The U.S. does not necessarily have privacy protections better than most countries, but just different. 70% of people in Australia believe Social Media should be restricted here for certain people. That's the will of the people, not government overreach. If it saves one 13 year old life, it will be worth it, don't you think?

I am against government ID checks for social media because it infringes on the constitutional right to anonymous speech (see Talley v. California and Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton for examples of this principle)

So you are against being accountable (first example). Got it. Interesting that the second example was based on the privacy of people being outweighed by the rights of people to invade that right through unsolicited door knocking and forcing a Watchtower magazine on them.

And I am against banning platforms altogether because the free flow of information on the internet should not be restricted by the state. The very regimes that you mention in China and Russia are some of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, and I don't want any of the stuff they have over here.

Well that's one opinion I guess. What if these Social Media companies are enabling people to get hurt? Here in Australia we have had children who have killed themselves over incidents that occurred on social media. Thus Social Media is being banned for children under 16. Free Speech does not mean free from consequences.

Whilst there are some benefits of social media, they are also required to have values. You don't want Big Pharma or Tobacco companies to continue to kill people like they have do you? What is the difference? Please don't give us the "it's not the gun that kill" b.s.

You don’t want any of their stuff? Censorship? Free internet remember.

The only laws that should regulate the free flow of content on the internet are laws to protect people from direct physical harm, such as laws to prevent the production and proliferation of Child Sexual Abuse Material.

The free and open internet should be preserved and protected.

So you're not about free speech then? Or free speech as long as it fits a moving definition based on changing Moral Standards. It's not actually free at all then is it?

So based on your comment about CSAM, you support Apple's attempt to identify CSAM on people's iPhones? Because you said that should be exempt. Where does it end if you have put your own Moral judgment on it. Free or Not Free? It’s very similar to the 2nd Court ruling you provided.

The free and open internet should be preserved and protected.

Within the boundaries of "The People's" wish, which is exactly what the outdated constitution is talking about with Freedom of Speech. The will of the people. You guys hold it up as a shield. But it's not.

Even on these forums, speech is not free. You cannot write whatever you want without consequences. The post will be deleted (censored) and a person can be banned. How is that Free Speech on Social Media. Or do you think they should be allowed to say whatever they want?

 

[arobert3434]

people wouldnt use it as much. The in app experience is what makes it.

There already IS a website. I assume it operates perfectly well from mobile browsers. Short of creating our own version of the Great Firewall it seems problematic to block it. (And if we DO create our own Great Firewall then we'll really have a cold war on.)

 

[WarmWinterHat]

A country can decide what it wants within its own borders. Who is Twitter, or TikTok or anyone to say what restrictions a country can place on them?

Examples:

Brazil banned Twitter (before Twitter caved in)​

Australia is banning children under 16 from Social Media and are also forcing social media to pay for news in their apps.​

Russia ban Facebook & China bans a whole lot more​

The only precedent being set is a country being allowed to exercise its own right to choose. The EU do it all the time.

Sure, said country can decide, but the country isn't deciding, committees in DC behind closed doors are deciding.

Let the country see it. If TikTok is doing wrong, put them on trial just the same and you and I would be, in a court, with a judge. There is a reason that secret trials are illegal here, and that should apply when banning a company/app/service if they are accused of wrongdoing.

..or, take the evidence to the podium and present it for everyone.

 

[d686546s]

I still don't understand why TikTok needs to be banned by primary legislation.

The legislation includes a general process whereby the executive needs to produce a report and put it to Congress and I'm not sure why that wouldn't be sufficient here. Make your case, make it public, present it to the legislative branch.

 

[deevey]

No matter your opinion of TikTok, letting this ban stand would set bad precedent for further restrictions of platforms on the internet.

The fact is that all of the supposed Chinese spying does not have evidence that has been shown publicly. Show us the evidence, then we can talk.

The data TikTok collects from users contains sensitive information and is often taken without the user’s explicit knowledge. This data includes device brand and model, Operating System (OS) version, mobile carrier, browsing history, app and file names and types, keystroke patterns or rhythms, wireless connections, and geolocation.[2] TikTok’s Privacy Policy describes the collection and analysis of user personally identifiable information (PII) as well as user data collected from other sources. This data can include age, image, personal contacts, relationship status, preferences, and other data collected through a single-sign on (SSO) feature that allows users to sign into TikTok from other platforms.[3] Furthermore, the app collects “the content of [messages] and information about when [messages are] sent, received and/or read.”[4] In aggregate, TikTok’s data collection is more intrusive than other apps.

To use the platform, users grant the app access to the microphone and camera. Multiple lawsuits allege that TikTok also collects biometric data from users, including facial geometry, iris scans, voice recognition, and fingerprints.[5] TikTok uses facial recognition software to superimpose images on users’ faces for use in videos. Unlike other data that is collected, biometrics represent the physical user and are generally permanent. Biometrics are therefore of high intelligence value. There is no direct evidence that TikTok is giving this data to the Chinese government, yet the existence of the National Intelligence Law compels TikTok to provide the data if requested.

While TikTok claims all user data is stored in the U.S. and Singapore, TikTok’s parent company servers are all located in China and the app itself contains references to China-based infrastructure. While it is unlikely Chinese officials would have access to the data stored in the U.S., all data stored within China may be shared with the Chinese government for intelligence purposes. Because of this, users should assume that their data is being aggregated and shared with the Chinese government.

Security and privacy concerns stem directly from the vague language of the law and the promise that the state will protect those who aid it. Suspected use of propaganda to further China’s political interests, coupled with the creation of an unprecedented information harvester, has made TikTok a hot topic for the U.S. Government and cybersecurity community alike. Unlike Europe, the U.S. does not have many federal laws that prohibit the collection, sale, and use of such personal data, leaving TikTok able to continuously scrape user data with little restraint or oversight.

TikTok, like all Chinese owned apps, is bound by an agreement to share ALL user data.

This was not denied during the hearings.

 

[d686546s]

The data TikTok collects from users contains sensitive information and is often taken without the user’s explicit knowledge. This data includes device brand and model, Operating System (OS) version, mobile carrier, browsing history, app and file names and types, keystroke patterns or rhythms, wireless connections, and geolocation.[2] TikTok’s Privacy Policy describes the collection and analysis of user personally identifiable information (PII) as well as user data collected from other sources. This data can include age, image, personal contacts, relationship status, preferences, and other data collected through a single-sign on (SSO) feature that allows users to sign into TikTok from other platforms.[3] Furthermore, the app collects “the content of [messages] and information about when [messages are] sent, received and/or read.”[4] In aggregate, TikTok’s data collection is more intrusive than other apps.

To use the platform, users grant the app access to the microphone and camera. Multiple lawsuits allege that TikTok also collects biometric data from users, including facial geometry, iris scans, voice recognition, and fingerprints.[5] TikTok uses facial recognition software to superimpose images on users’ faces for use in videos. Unlike other data that is collected, biometrics represent the physical user and are generally permanent. Biometrics are therefore of high intelligence value. There is no direct evidence that TikTok is giving this data to the Chinese government, yet the existence of the National Intelligence Law compels TikTok to provide the data if requested.

While TikTok claims all user data is stored in the U.S. and Singapore, TikTok’s parent company servers are all located in China and the app itself contains references to China-based infrastructure. While it is unlikely Chinese officials would have access to the data stored in the U.S., all data stored within China may be shared with the Chinese government for intelligence purposes. Because of this, users should assume that their data is being aggregated and shared with the Chinese government.

Security and privacy concerns stem directly from the vague language of the law and the promise that the state will protect those who aid it. Suspected use of propaganda to further China’s political interests, coupled with the creation of an unprecedented information harvester, has made TikTok a hot topic for the U.S. Government and cybersecurity community alike. Unlike Europe, the U.S. does not have many federal laws that prohibit the collection, sale, and use of such personal data, leaving TikTok able to continuously scrape user data with little restraint or oversight.

TikTok, like all Chinese owned apps, is bound by an agreement to share ALL user data.

This was not denied during the hearings.

In fairness, the amount of data TikTok collects seems to be pretty much in line with what its US counterparts are doing.

Mobile security experts say TikTok’s data collection practices aren’t particularly unique for an advertising-based business, and largely resemble those of its US-owned competitors. “For the iOS app available to Western audiences, it appears to collect very standard analytics information,” says Will Strafach, an iOS security researcher and creator of the privacy-focused Guardian Firewall app. That includes things like a user’s device model, their screen resolution, the operating system they use, and the time zone they’re in. “Most data collection by apps concerns me, I don’t like any of it. However, in context, TikTok appears to be pretty tame compared to other apps,” he says. Source

I try to stay away from social media apps for this very reason, but it feels disingenuous to call TikTok out on something that its American competitors are also doing.

So fundamentally it hinges on the ties to China and the implications from that, which may be a fair point, but of course acknowledging that we haven't actually seen any content of the classified briefings.

 

[steve09090]

Sure, said country can decide, but the country isn't deciding, committees in DC behind closed doors are deciding.

Let the country see it. If TikTok is doing wrong, put them on trial just the same and you and I would be, in a court, with a judge. There is a reason that secret trials are illegal here, and that should apply when banning a company/app/service if they are accused of wrongdoing.

..or, take the evidence to the podium and present it for everyone.

Such is the system that the people decide to elect certain people and thus they speak for the people. No point in whinging about the system when it’s their system.

In other words. The country has seen it and the country has decided. You can’t have a plebiscite on every decision.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Such is the system that the people decide to elect certain people and thus they speak for the people. No point in whinging about the system when it’s their system.

In other words. The country has seen it and the country has decided. You can’t have a plebiscite on every decision.

Again, no trial, no public presentation.

That's not how a system with checks and balances is supposed to work. I don't get convicted and sentenced by decree; that is some third-world dictator BS.

 

[H3boy]

JD Vance is the vice-president. He doesn't have any authority to do anything accept vote in the senate.

That said, I agree.

*Except

He is the Vice President Elect; he can't do anything until he is sworn in.

 

[H3boy]

I am by no means a fan of either governments for that matter but this and the whole thing against Huawei is just a market war to be honest. Has there ever been any proof that they are actually doing anything the US isn't doing themselves?

This has nothing to do with Huawei

 

[H3boy]

If the government has proof that TikTok is doing something nefarious, they need to present it openly to the public for any and all to see, without restriction.

This behind-doors "trust us" legislation just doesn’t work for me, nor does "well, china is doing it too!, waaa!"...that's all the more to reason to not block it.

No tit-for-tat.

This has been debated for years openly in both the house and the senate by officials elected by the public to act on their behalf. This has been going on for going on the third presidential term. It hasn't been exactly hidden. People have had plenty of time to contact their elected officials to voice their concerns. Tik Tok has also had plenty of time already to plead its case.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

This has been debated for years openly in both the house and the senate by officials elected to the public. This has been going on for going on the third presidential term. It hasn't been exactly hidden. People have had plenty of time to contact their elected officials to voice their concerns. Tik Tok has also had plenty of time already to plead its case.

I will post this one more time... Where is the public information? Where is the proof that they are doing anything?

This should be publicly-available information.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Even if they try, Trump will still allow it to stick around. Waste of time even trying to ban it.

 

[yanki01]

Make MySpace Great Again. And Vine.

I never had TikTok nor care for the videos but hate that other social media platforms are adopting those same short videos type. IG and FB are dead to me in that regard. X is unusable at this point. too much bloat, bots and propaganda.

 

[BGPL]

Now to block Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter - and in one year the world will return to normal and the idiocy will reside.

 

[H3boy]

I would be surprised if the SCOTUS will take the case much less offer a stay. The law was written specifically with the idea of defending against the “freedom of speech” defense and so far every court has accepted the secretive “national defense” argument without question. And the current makeup of the SCOTUS is highly unlikely to reverse that trend.

It is clearly obvious that there is zero likelihood of legislative relief.

The new chief executive (AKA the orange guy) has recently sounded sympathetic to reversing the ban. But previously he was the leading proponent in favor of the ban. And he regularly just lies and changes his stance. He also has a lot “bigger fish to fry” and it would be surprising if he would bother “burning politician capital” on this topic.

ByteDance has had 9 months to weasel out some sort of compromise. And they literally spent all their capital on the “freedom of speech” defense that the laws was specifically written to defend against. That hubris is likely now to cost them a boat load of money. There were other potential defenses (e.g. other companies (x, fb) gather and sell the same data to anybody (china, Russia, Iran) and picking on TikTok is commercial bias) but ByteDance stayed solely with “free of speech” argument.

I agree, we are coming up on the third presidential term this issue has been discussed. They have had plenty of time to craft a better argument.

I think they don't want to disclose all the other places they get information from.

 

[CEmajr]

Again, no trial, no public presentation.

That's not how a system with checks and balances is supposed to work. I don't get convicted and sentenced by decree; that is some third-world dictator BS.

They don't have to present it to the public. The politicians that Americans have elected to represent them have signed off on legislation to ban it so that's the end of it. This is a republic, not an absolute democracy where there's a public vote on matters like this. It's the same way that the government didn't have to present evidence to the people to drop $1 Trillion in Iraq.

 

[H3boy]

There already IS a website. I assume it operates perfectly well from mobile browsers. Short of creating our own version of the Great Firewall it seems problematic to block it. (And if we DO create our own Great Firewall then we'll really have a cold war on.)

Attempting to view a video using the website on a mobile device does not play the video but forces someone to download the app. I assume they could change this to how it was previously which allowed the viewing.

 

[H3boy]

I will post this one more time... Where is the public information? Where is the proof that they are doing anything?

This should be publicly-available information.

It's publicly known the CCP can request information hosted by Chinese companies at any time. That is the argument being used.