TikTok CEO expects to defeat US ban: 'We aren't going anywhere'

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tiktok-ceo-expects-defeat-us-restrictions-we-arent-going-anywhere-2024-04-24/

by tithe • 2 years ago

37 60 2 years ago

reuters.com

Jerrrry• 2 years ago

You would think the free market would value national security more.

blast• 2 years ago

Isn't that what they call an "externality"?

Uhhrrr2• 2 years ago

They do, but it doesn't apply to the funny dance app.

JoeAltmaier• 2 years ago

SO, a threat. Of course. Just feeding into the idea that it's an adversary running the thing.

Uhhrrr2• 2 years ago

What is the threat? In the article he says, "The facts and the Constitution are on our side and we expect to prevail again."

tptacek• 2 years ago

Literally what else could he possibly say in this situation?

tithe• 2 years ago

I would imagine something less confrontational to Congress than effectively "Take your best shot".

It's going to be interesting how this plays out, that's for sure.

JumpCrisscross2• 2 years ago

Literally what else could he possibly say in this situation?

The strongest move might have been business as usual. He doesn’t have public stockholders to appease. And his users aren’t going anywhere. The only case I can see for this statement is he doesn’t totally expect to win in court and needs to politicise the question as a back-up.

ForrestN• 2 years ago

“We understand the concerns expressed and are committed to finding a resolution that puts the interests of our users and the American public as our top priority.”

They should sell it or spin it off or whatever and make statements commensurate with that.

remarkEon2• 2 years ago

He could’ve said Nothing. That he’s so hostile to something that would be so financially beneficial to him makes me even more suspicious of his motives.

stefan_• 2 years ago

Maybe this?

https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/press-room/deloitte...

Or this?

https://investor.visa.com/news/news-details/2022/Visa-Suspen...

Can't go wrong with IBM?

https://newsroom.ibm.com/Update-on-IBMs-Business-Operations-...

The legal environment changing to make continued business in country X untenable is hardly a supremely rare event.

m3kw9• 2 years ago

Why not restrict it everything to be local server and have IT monitor and restrict traffic outside the country

10000truths• 2 years ago

They're already doing that with Project Texas. Oracle is the "IT".

UncleOxidant• 2 years ago

I recall that this was the compromise they made when Trump wanted to ban TT. Did this not address the security concerns?

gjsman-10004• 2 years ago

Does he seriously think the US SCOTUS is going to override the will of 79 senators, for the sake of a company with documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party?

If I was a senator, I would consider that almost treasonous. Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls. At that rate, the CCP should be able to buy beachfront property in California, ship military and nuclear weapons to the property, and claim that we can’t stop them because they paid the import fees.

metalcrow• 2 years ago

Isn't overriding the will of senators literally the point of the supreme court?

gjsman-10004• 2 years ago

No. The Supreme Court exists primarily to interpret the law, reconcile laws with other laws, and address vague language or other inconsistencies. Overriding the will of senators, immediately after a bill’s passing, is very rare and threatens their perceived legitimacy. Senators can always impeach SCOTUS judges, and to do such an act begs for it.

SteveNuts2• 2 years ago

Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls

That's literally SCOTUS's job though, particularly as it relates to the US Constitution. The whole point is that unconstitutional laws "in theory" should be struck down.

JumpCrisscross2• 2 years ago

That's literally SCOTUS's job

Its job is to resolve cases and controversies. If that requires finding the Constitution supersedes a law (or a federal law supersedes a state law), so be it.

ceejayoz5• 2 years ago

If I was a senator, I would consider that almost treasonous.

The Constitution - in this case, probably the First Amendment - very clearly limits what the Senate can do. The entire three-branch system is built on checks and balances of this nature.

Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls.

Can we vote to put redheads in extermination camps?

gjsman-10004• 2 years ago

Determining whether to allow a business incorporated offshore to operate in our country is completely incomparable to a inherited permanent genetic trait.

dixie_land• 2 years ago

As a thought exercise I would argue 2A protects the right of a Chinese national owning nuclear weapons legally in the US.

CrzyLngPwd5• 2 years ago

Can anyone say what user data ByteDance might share with the Chinese government?

Also, how is China an adversary? I thought the USA and China were trading partners.

whatevaa• 2 years ago

China no longer wants to be an underdog and wants to be a super power itself, thus forming geopolitical rivalry with USA.

el_don_almighty• 2 years ago

so put your big boy pants on and compete!!

Don't run under grampa Biden's rocking chair and hope he doesn't glide over your tail.

CrzyLngPwd5• 2 years ago

Ah, okay, so it's a competition, and the USA thinks it might not win because the Chinese gov might see the videos Yanks view on TikTok.

davis• 2 years ago

We are trading partners for sure but the American model and Chinese model are fundamentally opposed. For the last 10-15 years, tensions have been getting hotter because Xi has been consolidating power and flexing his strength across the region and exporting censorship. You can look at Hong Kong as an example of this. It's clear China doesn't want to live under a Western hegemony and has been trying to get more power and the US sees this. Trump instituted tariffs and we've also banned Huawei 5G equipment and it's all in the interest of national security and China hasn't liked this. So things have been going back and forth. TikTok is just seen as a scary possibility in that they could influence American minds at a scale that is unprecedented. There's a law in the US that no foreign entity can own a large share of any US broadcasting company. This is just to prevent hostile takeovers and controlling media. This is pretty similar to that in that TikTok is a media company and the US wants to exert that same control. User data is a red herring and honestly the least of the concern if you think about the soft power they control with the TikTok algorithm. Even though we have a trading relationship, things have been heating up under the surface for decades.

CrzyLngPwd5• 2 years ago

So many yanks downvoting rather than answering the question.

For world leaders, you sure do fail at leading.

wumeow• 2 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40146536

jauntywundrkind• 2 years ago

I kind of low key look forward to this.

It's hard for me to imagine TikTok retaining even 20% of the US market share after an app store ban. But that 20% would still be a huge cultural victory for ByteDance, would be an impressive resistance.

The US would really have to turn into a monster, would have to deputize a huge amount of internet services into becoming policemen to go further, and that's a horrible thing that I don't want to see. But also, I struggle to see that deputization down without a huge stink that makes congress look like foolish jerks.

And it'll never work. No matter how many ISP types we conscript, there's just way too many VPNs and other capabilities out there to workaround a technical ban. Squeezing hard will sort of illuminate the futility of the act.

And sort of that's my hope, that the ban becomes a lesson in futility, that sort of shows ByteDance's posture here is right (albeit at a considerable loss in market position). I want the internet to have a win here, I want democratized individual choices to triumph over tight centralized control, I want nations to not have the means. Other nations attempt elaborate control and I don't want the example of control to be proven viable here in the US. There's dark dark roads Congress & the government could go down to try to enforce this ban, but I'm kind of hoping they fail fast and fail hard.

(Also reserving the right to change my mind later. I struggle to see right now how picking on one (and only one) big foreign service is justified.)

Jezebelley• 2 years ago

If it's banned it'll all but die out of American popular culture. People will shift to things like YouTube Shorts instead. You can't even get the average person to understand mastodon let alone buy into a VPN subscription to circumvent regional bans.

slowmovintarget2• 2 years ago

Meanwhile, China orders Apple to yank WhatsApp and Facebook apps from its app store in China, because, ya know... they can.

codehalo• 2 years ago

Who gives a shit? What's the benefit of converting the United States into China Lite?

TMWNN3• 2 years ago

China orders Apple to yank WhatsApp

Welcome to 2017.

and Facebook

Welcome to 2009.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...>

tantalor2• 2 years ago

Do they even have standing? The proposed "ban" is enforced on the app stores, so I could see Google or Apple have standing, if they don't want to be forced to delete an app their users like. Meanwhile tiktok.com will still work in browsers.

joecot• 2 years ago

They almost certainly would have standing. Banning their app from the app store clearly directly affects them.

But they could instead just allow people to login on the mobile site and install it as a progressive web app, instead of forcing them to use the app so they can track people better.

TMWNN3• 2 years ago

My understanding is that you and tantalor are mistaken. The bill explicitly covers using TikTok as a web app.

pr337h4m• 2 years ago

The text of the bill literally mentioned "ByteDance Inc" and "TikTok" by name.

(which makes it a bill of attainder, and thus unconstitutional)

ceejayoz5• 2 years ago

I believe it's only a bill of attainder if it imposes criminal penalties; I think the TikTok ban is regulatory/civil.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._General_Services_Admi... might also matter.)

Finally, the Act did not violate the Bill of Attainder clause of the Constitution because this Act does not convict former President Nixon of a crime and does not expose him to prosecution.

photochemsyn• 2 years ago

Could all be a war over what datacenters get to service which customers in the end:

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/opinions/tiktoks-futur...

nimbius• 2 years ago

If the US has any credibility in the context of its constitutional sanctity, then this "ban" will be declared unconstitutional by the us supreme court.

if this were a poker game, ByteDance would have a full house. There is just no way they can lose this case, if only because the Citizens United ruling grants their corporation personhood.

remarkEon2• 2 years ago

USG has forced sales similar to this in previous years (Grindr), both without an act of Congress and without the lingering smell of national security concerns. This is different, yes, but different in that the legal case is more robust, not less.

difosfor• 2 years ago

I think it's a good idea for (groups of) countries to require large foreign countries to create local daughter companies to service their citizens locally. This way you can enforce your (hopefully democratic and good) laws and protect your citizens from things like spying. It's somewhat ironic that the US is raising this issue though since they do the same themselves. As far as I know their secret services are allowed to spy without restraint on anybody but American citizens. Or they are doing so anyhow.

TikTok CEO expects to defeat US ban: 'We aren't going anywhere'

Related Stories