Supreme Court rules TikTok can be banned

TikTok has said it's preparing to shut down Sunday.

See full article...

 

[Tonkaman]

Financially speaking it makes no sense for ByteDance to not cut their losses and sell. It could be that they want to keep their IP and view that as more valuable than the US market. Or it could be that TikTok's primary value is not financial. Evidence strongly suggests that its primary purpose is to be a tool of the Chinese state, so of course they wouldn't sell it.

Except for the fact that the majority of users are not in the United States, sure. The ban only affects a minority of users, so selling (under fire sale prices because it's under duress) makes no sense.

 

[Fatesrider]

I'll note this was Trump's plan, too, before it wasn't.

More to the point, it was an act of Congress, not an executive order. So not only was it both Trump's plan (before he tried servicing the young vote by saying he'd stop it, which even as POTUS, he can't unilaterally repeal a passed act of congress), it wasn't a Biden order after Trump was elected, either.

Nothing lame duck about it.

 

[forkspoon]

I used to care about my data, but than all the hacks and the fact that on every single website has so many data trackers that if not allowed, break the sites functionalities, I quit caring.

Fair point. Web tracking has gotten completely out of hand. I wouldn’t be surprised if a large majority of the computation in each page load is just tracking and/or ads. We could really use a Jesus-like figure to flip over all the money-changers tables there. And fucking everywhere else… (and in the absence of that, we cue the Luigi’s)

i really th8nk no one cares anymore because our elected officials don’t act like they care.

Definitely that’s another huge problem. Who do you turn to in our “representative” system when officials so often spend their way to reelection with big donors’ dollars? And of course they can’t piss off any media barons. I don’t know the answer to this, but increasing violence seems like an inevitable long term outcome if no plausible solution emerges.

 

[130bpm]

I love my Facebook groups. I have a CNC router at home, I learn new things from the CNC group. If I run into trouble they happily give me advice on where to start. Then there is the math memes group. Thanks to them I can open my lessons with a meme everyday. I have a few others...

I think social media is like alcohol. It can bring entertainment but also destroy lives.

Look at this guy with the fucking CNC machine and the garage big enough to house the CNC machine. Jealous mate.

 

[MechR]

It's still a market, however dysfunctional or monopolistic it is. One of the root reasons why it is dysfunctional is because it isn't necessarily profitable on its own, so it mostly makes sense as a loss-leader attached to some other business that sees strategic value in it.

Random, public YouTube factoids: most videos uploaded to YouTube will see fewer than 100 views, lifetime; videos are uploaded to YouTube faster than we can count them, so we can't tell you how many videos are on YouTube because the count is already wrong, we can only tell you the rate of growth in storage cost.

How is that sustainable for Vimeo, or Dailymotion, as standalone businesses?

If we had a proper, capitalist market for video hosting in which viewers paid the true cost of the service, it would fail. The price would exceed perceived value. YouTube, social media—they only "work" as multi-sided markets with advertisers paying to influence your purchasing and consumption decisions (poorly, I should add, because targeting is so bad!)

What's Tiktok's moneymaking business?

 

[James_G]

The Supreme Court for the last few years has been illegitimate has been making things up as they go, so really all of data is that 6 people disagree with the rest of the country. They don't follow sound legal doctrine anymore. That doesn't make them right.

You understand not all of the judges are Trump appointees, right? In fact only 3 of the 9 are. They stated that there was no violation of the first amendment, in agreement with lower courts.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I'm not defending this ban, but: I think there is a valid distinction between "foreigners", which most people would think of as individual people, whether living in other countries, or as resident aliens in the US, and foreign governments.

Perhaps I shouldnt have loosely used the word foreigners. I understand that distinction, but that wasnt meaningful to the question I asked.

We are saying that foreigners outside the US dont have first amendment rights. The question is about how if you can say the 1st amendment doesnt apply to them then how can they be assured that any other legal protections still do apply? At some point someone could say they dont have any "rights" at all because they arent citizens and they dont live here. Not even the right to apply to our court system for remedy. So then foreign investment in the US would be a very bad idea.

 

[Atterus]

I take issue, sir: I am emphatically not a bot.

gasp someone actually engaging in good faith discourse over CCP disinformatzya?! Hisses and scuttles into air vent labeled "resident Cold War anachronism, do not feed"

I get there are genuine arguments to be made on the topic, but I just cannot understand why people are fine with China regularly lying and abusing our system for their gains. They are allowed to influence us, but us doing the same has been actively suppressed. It must be both ways to be "fair" in the cultural influence sphere. I suppose I studied the Soviet info campaigns too much...

But carry on! I'm more here to tweak the malicious bot noses watching their info ops crash like a zeppelin aflame... my stance has been clear. Seems to be one of the two genuine ones...

 

[Tonkaman]

Or might stop considering it as a job and career.

It's honestly amazing that 20 years after youtube started, and there's many examples of people creating multi-million dollar companies using it, that people still reject the idea that "online content creator" is a valid job or career. I guess the olds are always out of touch and always will be.

 

[Tonkaman]

Well I haven’t heard much talk about Gaza or indeed the price of eggs on social media now that Teump has won.

Almost as if all of that was just a large targeted media campaign to manufacture consent and help Trump back into office

Almost like the media quit caring about it, so you don't see it anymore. Doesn't mean the people don't care and the protests aren't ongoing. The media just got bored with it.

 

[LabRatBob]

An entire generation is going to become politically active because of this.

I dunno... we spent the last 20 years sending them off to foreign lands to kill people for no reason, and that generation asked for more. I think you are confusing the populace with intelligent life.

 

[Black Eagle]

That's just supply and demand. Red states are economic hellholes, so nobody wants to live there. Conservative parents are always whining on Facebook how their kids moved away immediately after high school or college. Because nobody wants to live there, demand is low, and so are prices.

The numbers don’t really bear that out. Take a look at net domestic migration the last four years and the biggest gainers are Florida, Texas, North and South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Alabama, and Oklahoma.

 

[jordang]

Apologies for a naive question, but what's wrong with switching to YouTube? Or is the issue that getting rid of TikTok, basically forces a monopoly for YouTube?

YouTube is not comparable to TikTok. The algorithm for TikTok is incredibly good at getting people hooked and staying on the app for very long periods of time. Combined with an app better designed for users to record and share video in a variety of ways (stitches, comment replies, etc.) along with much higher payouts, YouTube Shorts are no where near a replacement for TikTok creators.

 

[Thegs]

Scrotus agreed that violating the first amendment for national security reasons is OK.

I realize that tensions are high but this simplistic reduction has like, literally been true for the entirety of the United States' existence. Telling national secrets to a wartime adversary is treason, the concerns of national security has always trumped the first amendment at some level. The reason that the Supreme Court took up this case is because where "freedom of speech" ends and "national security" begins is a fuzzy, constantly moving target. It's a complex, messy, and difficult subject that I doubt two people will ever agree exactly on. Reducing it to a one-line zinger in an attempt to cast the court in an ill light only reflects poorly on you. This court has done plenty of shitty, illogical, argued from a pre-made decision things that you should need to make things up like this.

 

[Tonkaman]

You understand not all of the judges are Trump appointees, right? In fact only 3 of the 9 are. They stated that there was no violation of the first amendment, in agreement with lower courts.

All of the conservatives are federalist society lackeys. Trump didn't have any active decision making and just picked off the list he was handed.

 

[Tonkaman]

The numbers don’t really bear that out. Take a look at net domestic migration the last four years and the biggest gainers are Florida, Texas, North and South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Alabama, and Oklahoma.

And within those states where are people moving too? Blue cities, and they get pissed when the red state government meddles in the city government. Costs are rapidly increasing in those cities because demand rises. Again, absolutely nothing to do with red states policies keeping things cheap.

 

[gregorerlich]

Sounds like a good excuse for Europe/Canada/Mexico/etc to ban X and Meta as they can be used for spying by an increasingly hostile US government. That is the same reasoning being used here, after all.

Don't tempt me with a good time...

 

[Embattle]

It's honestly amazing that 20 years after youtube started, and there's many examples of people creating multi-million dollar companies using it, that people still reject the idea that "online content creator" is a valid job or career. I guess the olds are always out of touch and always will be.

No I just won't accept everyone who posts crap to YT, TT, etc. is, unlike the youngs.

 

[130bpm]

The numbers don’t really bear that out. Take a look at net domestic migration the last four years and the biggest gainers are Florida, Texas, North and South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Alabama, and Oklahoma.

Yes, because they are cheap, because there is lower demand to live in those places, and now it is easier to work remotely. What happened 4 years ago?

Call me when red states don’t make up 9 of the 10 worst states by income, life expectancy, maternal mortality rates, child poverty, etc

 

[rperson99]

Seems like I've heard this for the last two decades at least, and look at what we have coming into office next week.

Yep. The abortion ban helped the GOP. Apparently the majority of US citizens want to live in a police state.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

The Supreme Court for the last few years has been illegitimate, and has been making things up as they go, so really all this means is that 6 people disagree with the rest of the country. They don't follow sound legal doctrine anymore. That doesn't make them right.

This decision was 9-0.

 

[DaVuVuZeLa]

An entire generation is going to become politically active because of this.

 

[Arkannis]

I don’t like how it happened, but good riddance. TikTok is garbage.

 

[sxotty]

Sounds like a good excuse for Europe/Canada/Mexico/etc to ban X and Meta as they can be used for spying by an increasingly hostile US government. That is the same reasoning being used here, after all.

The more of these platforms that cease to exist the happier I'll be.

 

[BMWMECHANIC]

42% is still higher than 2016 which was 39% per your source. 2020 was just a very unique year.

Wasn't 2016 "Bernie or Bust"? young people wanting a more progressive democratic party.

 

[Psyborgue]

So you have a lot of radicalized, hateful friends? That's interesting; I have none.

Most of whom I am referring to were from a specific community that was microtargeted. They weren’t always that way. They were skeptical of authority because they had been genuinely mistreated in the past and people abused that, shaped it, and the service you enable enabled it.

You are correct. And you don't care about my concerns, the only difference being that I don't expect you to—I'm neither that self-indulgent nor narcissistic. My group positioning in the global ethnic and national hierarchy doesn't afford me that luxury.

Well now that tech companies are all bowing to a raving, racist, demagogue, I hope you’re happy working on the tech that will in large part enable him and his ilk to stay in power indefinitely. I am sure your ethnic hierarchy will be just fine.

 

[sxotty]

The numbers don’t really bear that out. Take a look at net domestic migration the last four years and the biggest gainers are Florida, Texas, North and South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Alabama, and Oklahoma.

Kinda cool. What is wild is his much the combined and the domestic migration can vary. Also the states you singles out make no sense drive doing it by proportion makes sense.
Idaho, South Carolina, Montana, Delaware all are ahead of Florida.

 

[whobeme]

This same SCOTUS will shortly rule that porn sites must require users to divulge sensitive ID information in order to be accessed. Information that could then be passed by one mechanism or another to the US government, other companies, or for all I know, the KKK, or even the Chinese acting through intermediaries. This will not be a problem because US politicians would never utilize this information to hurt a domestic opponent. Just like they would never out an active CIA agent because her husband was critical of domestic policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

 

[Jeff S]

Perhaps I shouldnt have loosely used the word foreigners. I understand that distinction, but that wasnt meaningful to the question I asked.

We are saying that foreigners outside the US dont have first amendment rights. The question is about how if you can say the 1st amendment doesnt apply to them then how can they be assured that any other legal protections still do apply? At some point someone could say they dont have any "rights" at all because they arent citizens and they dont live here. Not even the right to apply to our court system for remedy. So then foreign investment in the US would be a very bad idea.

Who said foreigners (as in individuals using the internet, from other countries) don't have any first amendment rights then? I really don't understand why you are asking that, if it's not specifically about TikTok?

It is my understanding that, at least to the extent foreigners interact with the USA, they do have first amendment rights with regards to our legal system.

 

[Snark218]

You aren't the target audience. They have the equivalent of gatcha game whales.

A mix of outrage and fear keeps people viewing anti-muslim, anti-trans, anti-"woke", etc. content for hours and hours every day. People trying to keep up to date with the new threats. Threats like the new microchips in the new vaccines, or people who use the word cisgender. Or how TikTok is turning our kids woke and lazy instead of working 30 hours a day to pay their rent.

This is a depressingly perceptive observation.

 

[Snark218]

They don’t get paid to show you things you want to see. They get paid to show you things advertisers want you to see. You are the product

Obviously. But if they are showing me ads for shit I wouldn’t buy in a thousand friggin’ years, they’re fucking it up. If I were an instagram advertiser selling golf shoes or hunting gear or Wrangler jeans and I knew Meta was repeatedly serving my ads to 42 year old guy who follows nothing but accounts about food and travel and who actively reviles golf and doesn’t hunt, I’d shit.

 

[drwho9437]

The US government has the absolute right to regulate who does business within its borders and the kind of commerce they can transact.

This is no different. If you can block US Steel being sold to Japan you certainly can block a platform with massive reach from operating a less friendly country.

Trump should do nothing but force them to sell it. He seems big on using US market leverage with tariffs, this should be no different. Information is far more dangerous than steel honestly.

 

[SixDegrees]

The US government has the absolute right to regulate who does business within its borders and the kind of commerce they can transact.

This is no different. If you can block US Steel being sold to Japan you certainly can block a platform with massive reach from operating a less friendly country.

Trump should do nothing but force them to sell it. He seems big on using US market leverage with tariffs, this should be no different. Information is far more dangerous than steel honestly.

Uh - we're talking about Donald Trump here. He will seek ways to enrich himself by this, no more and no less. Whatever he winds up doing - if anything - it will not be motivated by what's best for the nation. Only what's best for him personally.

Agree with your analysis otherwise, though.

 

[drwho9437]

Sounds like a good excuse for Europe/Canada/Mexico/etc to ban X and Meta as they can be used for spying by an increasingly hostile US government. That is the same reasoning being used here, after all.

LMAO. The EU does regulate them already. To conflate how China operatives with the US is laughable.

The US government has minimal control over Meta, etc. China allow f*ck all inside China that it does not control. Everything is censored... Go to prison if you speak ill of the government in HK now.

The false equivalence is outrageous. You can totally think the US government is hostile but it doesn't have the same kind of direct control over companies. It has you know democracy and rule of law and not a dictatorship... Jeez.

 

[taxythingy]

Mandatory tardigrade with tiny violin pic.
View attachment 100312

That's a cello. Being played in the wrong part of the strings. Point: it's not small enough...

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Perhaps I shouldnt have loosely used the word foreigners. I understand that distinction, but that wasnt meaningful to the question I asked.

We are saying that foreigners outside the US dont have first amendment rights. The question is about how if you can say the 1st amendment doesnt apply to them then how can they be assured that any other legal protections still do apply? At some point someone could say they dont have any "rights" at all because they arent citizens and they dont live here. Not even the right to apply to our court system for remedy. So then foreign investment in the US would be a very bad idea.

Who said foreigners (as in individuals using the internet, from other countries) don't have any first amendment rights then?

Justice Elena Kagen said that Bytedance does not have any 1st amendment rights because it is a foreign corporation.

 

[trashcanman]

Well, I guess the Chinese will have to keep buying our data from the same shady sources that the USG buys our data from. And if someone can explain to me how TikTok is worse than Meta or Twitter, I’m all ears.

 

[dogwitch]

Perhaps, but the justices limited the holding to TikTok and other social media platforms owned by a Chinese parent company. They basically acknowledge that, but for the Chinese ownership, this case would have turned out very differently. Only time will tell whether that is enough to prevent, as you have suggested, the slippery slope.

not perhaps.
it will be plain and simple.

 

[oluseyi]

What's Tiktok's moneymaking business?

TikTok Shop.

 

[Psyborgue]

This same SCOTUS will shortly rule that porn sites must require users to divulge sensitive ID information in order to be accessed. Information that could then be passed by one mechanism or another to the US government, other companies, or for all I know, the KKK, or even the Chinese acting through intermediaries. This will not be a problem because US politicians would never utilize this information to hurt a domestic opponent. Just like they would never out an active CIA agent because her husband was critical of domestic policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Well, the plus is that only one side cares about that. On wait this is America and we can’t have nice things.

Fucking Puritans.