Tik Tok lawsuit

[Smoove_B]

We didn't have a thread on this? Well, I guess we do now:

TikTok and its parent company on Tuesday filed a legal challenge against the United States over a law that President Biden signed last month, which would outlaw the app nationwide unless it finds a buyer within a year.

In the petition filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the company said the legislation exceeds the bounds of the constitution and suppresses the speech of millions of Americans.

"For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide," according to the legal filing.

Of note:

Lawmakers in Washington have long been suspicious of TikTok, fearing its Chinese owner could use the popular app to spy on Americans or spread dangerous disinformation.

But in the company's legal petition, lawyers for TikTok say invoking "national security" does not give the government a free pass to violate the First Amendment, especially, TikTok, argues, when not public evidence has been presented of the Chinese government using the app as a weapon against Americans.

According to the filing, the law is based on "speculative and analytically flawed concerns about data security and content manipulation — concerns that, even if grounded in fact, could be addressed through far less restrictive and more narrowly tailored means."

[hepcat]

This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.

[LordMortis]

https://www.trade.gov/country-commercia ... ed-imports

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

https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-t ... ted-states

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tikt ... 024-03-15/

[hepcat]

Could you put together a tik tok video of you reading the highlights of those linked pieces? I don't have time to read through that all.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think tiktok should win this lawsuit.

If the reason to ban it is because the fear of it "spying" on Americans for China, there is a way to safeguard and prevent that without banning tiktok.

If the reason is to "save the children" then US need to ban youtube shorts or instagram reel which are almost the same as tiktok.

Then there is this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 40021.html

Social media sites like TikTok are partly to blame for widespread criticism of Israel’s war effort against Hamas in Gaza, according to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The comments came as part of a conversation at the McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum in Sedona, Arizona, between Secretary Blinken and US senator Mitt Romney.

The Utah Republican asked the top diplomat why “the PR has been so awful” against Israel since the beginning of the 7 October conflict.

“Why has Hamas disappeared in terms of public perception?” he continued. “An offer is on the table for a ceasefire and yet the world is screaming about Israel.”

Mr Blinken said that part of the reason for that dynamic was a changing media environment, where people no longer all read from the same authoritative news sources and instead learn about current events on chaotic social media feeds.

“Now of course we’re on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond,” Mr Blinken said. “And of course the way this has played out on social media has dominated the narrative. You have a social media ecosystem, environment in which context, history, facts get lost and the emotion, the impact of images dominate. We can’t discount that, but I think it also has a very very challenging effect on the narrative.”

Mr Romney appeared to agree, saying the effect Mr Blinken was describing was why “there was such overwhelming support for us to potentially shut down TikTok.”

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

[hepcat]

I think tiktok should win this lawsuit.

If the reason to ban it is because the fear of it "spying" on Americans for China, there is a way to safeguard and prevent that without banning tiktok.

To be fair, that's NEVER a sure thing. There will always be a chance that the Chinese have broken through any security that was intended to keep them from getting to the info on users as long as they have access in any way, shape or form to tik tok.

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

This is demonstrably false. The move to ban tik tok has always been based on security concerns that started long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

[LordMortis]

It's not censorship if TikTok was given the chance to divest from Chinese authority. That's just you inserting your bias. Factually speaking that was a way to safeguard and prevent spying without banning it.

OtOH, finding a buyer at a reasonable valuation with China holding back the IP behind TicTok would have been a challenge. But with the way China respects IP rights, TikTok valuation can tank or be banned. TikTok was already demonstrably directly tying to influence elections as a foreign entity. Flush them down the drain.

[Victoria Raverna]

It's not censorship if TikTok was given the chance to divest from Chinese authority. That's just you inserting your bias. Factually speaking that was a way to safeguard and prevent spying without banning it.

OtOH, finding a buyer at a reasonable valuation with China holding back the IP behind TicTok would have been a challenge. But with the way China respects IP rights, TikTok valuation can tank or be banned. TikTok was already demonstrably directly tying to influence elections as a foreign entity. Flush them down the drain.

Is tik tok the only company owned by China that operated in US? What is so special about tik tok that it need to be forced to divest?

Why not Riot Games? Why not Epic? Why not Discord?

[Isgrimnur]

How about Huawei?

[hepcat]

It's not censorship if TikTok was given the chance to divest from Chinese authority. That's just you inserting your bias. Factually speaking that was a way to safeguard and prevent spying without banning it.

OtOH, finding a buyer at a reasonable valuation with China holding back the IP behind TicTok would have been a challenge. But with the way China respects IP rights, TikTok valuation can tank or be banned. TikTok was already demonstrably directly tying to influence elections as a foreign entity. Flush them down the drain.

Is tik tok the only company owned by China that operated in US? What is so special about tik tok that it need to be forced to divest?

Why not Riot Games? Why not Epic? Why not Discord?

This may help you understand why.

In short: Tik Tok has a HUGE audience in the United States that far outstrips the majority of other social media platforms. It also has a history of being used to influence elections, promoting Chinese propaganda, etc..

And again: trying to tie this to censorship of complaints against Israel is ridiculous considering the time frame. And there's just as much evidence supporting a theory that it's being banned because Israeli Americans are complaining about Hamas. Since I don't believe that, I find it hard to believe the other side.

p.s. And we're hardly the only ones who don't trust Tik Tok. Here's a short list of countries already banning it at the government level (like we do).

Regions with partial bans and the devices they're banned on include the following:

Australia -- on devices issued by some individual government agencies.
Belgium -- on federal government work devices.
Canada -- on government-issued devices.
Denmark -- on Defense Ministry staff devices.
European Union -- on Parliament, Commission and EU Council staff devices.
France -- on professional phones of civil servants.
Latvia -- on work devices at the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
New Zealand -- on Parliament members' and lawmakers' work devices.
Norway -- on government work devices.
Taiwan -- on government devices.
United Kingdom -- on government devices.
United States -- on federal government devices and systems

[LordMortis]

Is tik tok the only company owned by China that operated in US?

Absolutely not. Temu is another very popular China owned Internet company in the US. And? Though Temu is also coming under scrutiny. So we should look at others. I haven't paid attention to companies like Tencent (who do not own Epic but rather is controlled by Tim Sweeny out of North Carolina)

What is so special about tik tok that it need to be forced to divest?

Espionage. You mentioned it yourself as to an excuse for why they should win in court.

Why not Riot Games? Why not Epic? Why not Discord?

A better question why would the US go after these? And if there is reason, they absolutely should.

All that said, I do hope this lays the groundwork for better privacy protections across the board. I want those protections on vehicles and phones as well as apps and web pages and ISPs. I think these "agreements" to lay your privacy bare are corporate (and now government back ended corporations) malfeasance and lawsuits against the most flagrant of invaders should start that ball rolling.

[Victoria Raverna]

It's not censorship if TikTok was given the chance to divest from Chinese authority. That's just you inserting your bias. Factually speaking that was a way to safeguard and prevent spying without banning it.

OtOH, finding a buyer at a reasonable valuation with China holding back the IP behind TicTok would have been a challenge. But with the way China respects IP rights, TikTok valuation can tank or be banned. TikTok was already demonstrably directly tying to influence elections as a foreign entity. Flush them down the drain.

Is tik tok the only company owned by China that operated in US? What is so special about tik tok that it need to be forced to divest?

Why not Riot Games? Why not Epic? Why not Discord?

This may help you understand why.

And again: trying to tie this to censorship of complaints against Israel is ridiculous considering the time frame. And there's just as much evidence supporting a theory that it's being banned because Israeli Americans are complaining about Hamas. Since I don't believe that, I find it hard to believe the other side.

p.s. And we're hardly the only ones who don't trust Tik Tok. Here's a short list of countries already banning it at the government level (like we do).

Regions with partial bans and the devices they're banned on include the following:

Australia -- on devices issued by some individual government agencies.
Belgium -- on federal government work devices.
Canada -- on government-issued devices.
Denmark -- on Defense Ministry staff devices.
European Union -- on Parliament, Commission and EU Council staff devices.
France -- on professional phones of civil servants.
Latvia -- on work devices at the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
New Zealand -- on Parliament members' and lawmakers' work devices.
Norway -- on government work devices.
Taiwan -- on government devices.
United Kingdom -- on government devices.
United States -- on federal government devices and systems

But are there other countries that support free speech that banned it from operating at all or force them to sell to a local owner?

[Jaymann]

Wouldn't some smart money build an alternative to Tik Tok before it goes dark?

[hepcat]

But are there other countries that support free speech that banned it from operating at all or force them to sell to a local owner?

Yes. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes not. And many of them are at the same stage we are in the process.

And keep in mind, we're not banning tik tok. We've demanded it be sold to an entity not controlled by the Chinese government. If they do that, they're perfectly free to continue operating in the United States. Most other countries haven't given them that option. Hell, NATO bans its use.

In spite of what you want to believe, this was an issue long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

[Victoria Raverna]

Is tik tok the only company owned by China that operated in US?

Absolutely not. Temu is another very popular China owned Internet company in the US. And? Though Temu is also coming under scrutiny. So we should look at others. I haven't paid attention to companies like Tencent (who do not own Epic but rather is controlled by Tim Sweeny out of North Carolina)

What is so special about tik tok that it need to be forced to divest?

Espionage. You mentioned it yourself as to an excuse for why they should win in court.

Why not Riot Games? Why not Epic? Why not Discord?

A better question why would the US go after these? And if there is reason, they absolutely should.

All that said, I do hope this lays the groundwork for better privacy protections across the board. I want those protections on vehicles and phones as well as apps and web pages and ISPs. I think these "agreements" to lay your privacy bare are corporate (and now government back ended corporations) malfeasance and lawsuits against the most flagrant of invaders should start that ball rolling.

I support privacy protections but this law is to ban a single company while doesn't do anything about Meta, Google and others. What is so dangerous about Tiktok but not Meta, Google and others if not just because it is majority owned by a Chinese company. Tiktok proposed a way to safeguard US's user data by storing them in US.

Also the reasoning that China's law forced tiktok to share data if asked is also not correct since tiktok doesn't operate in China so not under any Chinese law.

So the way I look at it, is that the ban is either because of fearmongering and anti-China politic or it is to kill a competitor to US's media companies. Banning tiktok is going to help Meta and Google.

[Victoria Raverna]

But are there other countries that support free speech that banned it from operating at all or force them to sell to a local owner?

Yes. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes not. And many of them are at the same stage we are in the process.

And keep in mind, we're not banning tik tok. We've demanded it be sold to an entity not controlled by the Chinese government. If they do that, they're perfectly free to continue operating in the United States. Most other countries haven't given them that option. Hell, NATO bans its use.

In spite of what you want to believe, this was an issue long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

Does that mean Chinese companies and investors can't owned any business that operate in US? US has declared China as an enemy so Chinese investors are not welcomed?

[LordMortis]

And keep in mind, we're not banning tik tok. We've demanded it be sold to an entity not controlled by the Chinese government. If they do that, they're perfectly free to continue operating in the United States.

Victoria has that on ignore. Though, admittedly, once Tik Tok removes its IP from the app in the US, it's value circles the drain.

Also, Tik Tok as an entity sponsored by the Chinese government, has flagrantly tried to influence US elections. That alone is grounds for shutting down without comparison to any other app that I am aware of. And even then, I would still like to see this be the beginning of cracking down on Internet Privacy and tracking more generally speaking, starting with the worst offender (that I am aware of).

[hepcat]

He's also got issie on ignore as he completely glossed over his point about Huawei.

[Victoria Raverna]

But are there other countries that support free speech that banned it from operating at all or force them to sell to a local owner?

Yes. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes not. And many of them are at the same stage we are in the process.

And keep in mind, we're not banning tik tok. We've demanded it be sold to an entity not controlled by the Chinese government. If they do that, they're perfectly free to continue operating in the United States. Most other countries haven't given them that option. Hell, NATO bans its use.

In spite of what you want to believe, this was an issue long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

A lot of those countries that banned tiktok was to silence critics or free speech? Like ban it after the arrest of an opposition leader. Ban it because it is spreading "propaganda" according to the government? Ban it because of religion teaching? Ban it because of clash with protestors?

So pretty much censorship.

[hepcat]

To prove your point, one of the most political social platforms on earth was told to sell or be banned a while ago just for people getting together to discuss anti Israeli propaganda.

Yes, I'm talking about Grindr.

"Meet me in the park after sundown in leather chaps and a red hankie in your right back pocket" really meant "DOWN WITH THE ZIONISTS!"

It's not censorship if TikTok was given the chance to divest from Chinese authority. That's just you inserting your bias. Factually speaking that was a way to safeguard and prevent spying without banning it.

I feel like this should just be added to every reply to VR in this thread.

[Victoria Raverna]

And keep in mind, we're not banning tik tok. We've demanded it be sold to an entity not controlled by the Chinese government. If they do that, they're perfectly free to continue operating in the United States.

Victoria has that on ignore. Though, admittedly, once Tik Tok removes its IP from the app in the US, it's value circles the drain.

Also, Tik Tok as an entity sponsored by the Chinese government, has flagrantly tried to influence US elections. That alone is grounds for shutting down without comparison to any other app that I am aware of. And even then, I would still like to see this be the beginning of cracking down on Internet Privacy and tracking more generally speaking, starting with the worst offender (that I am aware of).

Forcing them to sell the company to an US company so it'll be controlled by US government? Kinda like Trump like to accuse others of doing what Trump has been doing.

You got your fact wrong. Tik tok is not an entity sponsored by the Chinese government. As for influence US election, any proof of that? Are you accusing Tiktok helping BIden win against Trump?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech ... index.html

Is TikTok Chinese?

On the face of it, the answer would appear to be “no.” It was first incorporated in California in April 2015, according to US court documents.

TikTok has never existed in mainland China, though the app was available in Hong Kong until July 2020, when it pulled out shortly after Beijing imposed a controversial national security law in the city.

At the time, the app was trying to distance itself from China in the face of growing pressure from the Trump administration.

In China, there is a different version of TikTok: a sister app called Douyin.

It launched before TikTok and became a viral sensation in the massive mainland market. Its powerful algorithm became the foundation for TikTok and is key to its global success.

In March 2023, CEO Chew was repeatedly pressed by US lawmakers on whether TikTok was Chinese. He didn’t answer the question directly, saying only that the app was not available in the country and that it was headquartered in Los Angeles and Singapore.

But TikTok is ultimately owned, through a complex multi-layered corporate structure, by ByteDance, a privately owned technology giant.

The app is owned by TikTok LLC, a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware and based in Culver City, California. The LLC is controlled by TikTok Ltd, which is registered in the Cayman Islands and based in Shanghai. That firm is ultimately owned by ByteDance Ltd, also incorporated in the Cayman Islands and based in Beijing.

ByteDance’s website shows that the company developed TikTok as a global short video product and formally launched it in May 2017. Six months later, it acquired rival Musical.ly and subsequently merged it with the main platform.

According to TikTok’s own website, its subsidiaries around the world are all structured under Bytedance Ltd.


Is ByteDance Chinese?

Definitely.

ByteDance was founded in 2012 in Beijing by Zhang Yiming and Liang Rubo, who were college roommates at Tianjin’s Nankai University, according to company information and Zhang’s public speeches.

It has been based in the Chinese capital since then. In 2021, Zhang announced he would step down as CEO of ByteDance and handed the reins to Liang.

ByteDance has more than 110,000 employees globally. Besides TikTok, it owns a number of popular Chinese apps such as Douyin, news aggregator Jinri Toutiao, video-sharing platform Xigua.

At last year’s congressional hearing, Chew didn’t directly answer any questions about whether ByteDance is a Chinese company either.

He only said ByteDance is a Chinese-founded private company operating many businesses in China, but is “global” in nature.

Chew added that 60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group, while 20% of the firm is owned by Zhang and 20% owned by employees around the world. Three of the company’s five board members are Americans, he said.

[Dogstar]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

This is demonstrably false. The move to ban tik tok has always been based on security concerns that started long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

While you're right that the security concerns have existed before the Israeli-Hamas conflict, Romney is on tape in that interview, that discusses why Israel is losing the PR war, talking about that the misinformation/counter-narrative is a reason there was such overwhelming support to shut down TikTok. He used the word "shut down" as opposed to China divesting. That's leaning more towards suppression of speech.

[hepcat]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

This is demonstrably false. The move to ban tik tok has always been based on security concerns that started long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

While you're right that the security concerns have existed before the Israeli-Hamas conflict, Romney is on tape in that interview, that discusses why Israel is losing the PR war, talking about that the misinformation/counter-narrative is a reason there was such overwhelming support to shut down TikTok. He used the word "shut down" as opposed to China divesting. That's leaning more towards suppression of speech.

So now we take the words of GOP politicians with a history of lying as the gospel truth about what's REALLY happening in Washington?

This was in the works LONG before the current conflict. There's been biparisan support for almost that entire time. The Grindr piece I posted above proves that it's been a concern for years and that action like this has precedent.

Why wasn't it banned before if it had bipartisan support?

Probably because Bytedance had agreed to divest back in 2020...then never did.

In 2020, the United States government announced that it was considering banning the Chinese social media platform TikTok upon a request from then-president Donald Trump, who viewed the app as a national security threat. The result was that TikTok owner ByteDance—which initially planned on selling a small portion of TikTok to an American company—agreed to divest TikTok to prevent a ban in the United States and in other countries where restrictions are also being considered due to privacy concerns, which themselves are mostly related to its ownership by a firm based in China.

And again: if this was about censorship, I doubt they'd offer them a chance to continue operating in the United States at all. But they are by asking them to divest from the Chinese government.

[hitbyambulance]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

sorry to pile on, but this is completely untrue. the movement to ban Tiktok started years ago (which was, ofc, long before this whole latest Middle East flare up)

[Dogstar]

So now we take the words of GOP politicians with a history of lying as the gospel truth about what's REALLY happening in Washington?

Again: No. This was in the works LONG before the current conflict. The Grindr piece I posted above proves that it's been a concern for years and that action like this has precedent.

What's Romney's motivation to lie here? I don't think he's trying to pin anything specifically on Israel losing the PR war in terms of shutting down TikTok. I think that there's definite concern among the powers that be that they can't really manage social media, and it's easy for social media, in this case TikTok, to do any number of things people aren't wild about. It can be used as a tool for subversion, which I think has been argued upthread. It can distort the facts. It can be used as a tool for organizing and gathering. And it can be used as tool for information dissemination, which can run directly counter to the narrative the powers that be would like to build. Throw in the fact that it's where a good chunk of the population (an increasingly higher percentage as you move down through the age brackets) gets its instant information, and Romney's comment becomes much more understandable. Israel losing the PR war is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself for Romney (and likely others).

And yes, it can be used to gather information by foreign governments and other entities to gather data and possibly damage cellphone code should the need arise -- not denying that. I'm not denying that there aren't other concerns about TikTok, or that the move to get China to divest didnt' start awhile ago. I just think that those aren't the only reasons, and there are First Amendment concerns.

[Victoria Raverna]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

This is demonstrably false. The move to ban tik tok has always been based on security concerns that started long before the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

While you're right that the security concerns have existed before the Israeli-Hamas conflict, Romney is on tape in that interview, that discusses why Israel is losing the PR war, talking about that the misinformation/counter-narrative is a reason there was such overwhelming support to shut down TikTok. He used the word "shut down" as opposed to China divesting. That's leaning more towards suppression of speech.

So now we take the words of GOP politicians with a history of lying as the gospel truth about what's REALLY happening in Washington?

Again: No. This was in the works LONG before the current conflict. There's been biparisan support for almost that entire time. The Grindr piece I posted above proves that it's been a concern for years and that action like this has precedent.

They have been talking about banning Tiktok since before the conflict but the actual laws was passed and signed after the conflict. Why you think it is impossible for the "bad PR" on the conflict was part of the reason for the law to pass? Especially when you look at which Democrats voted no, you'll find AOC, Omar, etc. which are the ones that are pro Palestinians.

[hepcat]

(And yes, it can be used to gather information by foreign governments and other entities to gather data and possibly damage cellphone code should the need arise -- not denying that.)

This should have been your lead.

What's Romney's motivation to lie here? I don't think he's trying to pin anything specifically on Israel losing the PR war in terms of shutting down TikTok.

Then I don't know what your attempt to seemingly jump into the debate on behalf of VR's belief that the United States is suddenly banning Tik Tok (which is not the truth) is about.

Did Romney say that? Yes. Is that throwing red meat to the GOP constituents who view the campus protests as another culture war...and his attempt to tie the two together? I'm going with yes again. So there's your motivation, in my opinion.

[LordMortis]

Forcing them to sell the company to an US company so it'll be controlled by US government?

Controlled by? How so? Other than being accountable to as any US company is.

You got your fact wrong. Tik tok is not an entity sponsored by the Chinese government.

From your link

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech/tik ... index.html

Does the Chinese government own or control ByteDance or TikTok?

Chew has emphatically told Congress that ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

However, like most other Chinese companies, ByteDance is legally compelled to establish an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members.

Zhang Fuping, the vice president and editor-in-chief of the company’s Chinese operation, serves as its secretary of the party committee. The committee often holds sessions to study the party and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. One session in 2018 was joined by Zhang Yiming and his management team, according to the Beijing government.

Can the Chinese Communist Party manipulate ByteDance or TikTok?

As a China-based company, ByteDance is subject to a myriad of national intelligence, data security and cybersecurity laws.

In 2018, China amended its National Intelligence Law, which requires any organization or citizen to support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.

That means ByteDance is legally bound to help with gathering intelligence.

As for influence US election, any proof of that?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tikt ... 024-03-15/

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech ... index.html

March 15 (Reuters) - TikTok displayed a notification to some U.S. users on Friday, urging them to call their senators and ask them to vote no to a bill that would ban the popular short-form video app if it is not divested from Chinese tech company ByteDance.
"Tell your Senator how important TikTok is to you. Ask them to vote no on the TikTok ban," the notice said, which allowed users to enter their zip code to locate their senator's phone number.

"Now, if the Senate votes, the future of creativity and communities you love on TikTok could be shut down," the notice read.

If you search for "tik tok used to call senators" you'll get TikTok scripts on demanding no bans (when there was no ban proposed) all to influence Congress from IP protected algorithms in China under directive from the corporation. A veritable Musk move and we all love what he is doing on Xhitter and would hate to see a crackdown there.

[hepcat]

You got your fact wrong. Tik tok is not an entity sponsored by the Chinese government. As for influence US election, any proof of that? Are you accusing Tiktok helping BIden win against Trump?

The proof that Bytedance provides the Chinese government private data is available, if you just look at different news sources than those that agree with what you want to believe.

Edit: here's some more info on Tik Tok being used by the Chinese government to influence elections.

[Victoria Raverna]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

sorry to pile on, but this is completely untrue. the movement to ban Tiktok started years ago (which was, ofc, long before this whole latest Middle East flare up)

Movement started years ago but it passed by bipartisan support after the conflict and the bad PR for Israel. There were also a lot of false accusation from politicians that tiktok's contents are more pro Palestinian than Israel and that Tiktok was influencing younger people to be pro Palestinian. It is likely to be the other way around, because the users of tiktok are younger people, the contents are more pro Palestinians because younger people are more pro Palestinians.

[Victoria Raverna]

You got your fact wrong. Tik tok is not an entity sponsored by the Chinese government. As for influence US election, any proof of that? Are you accusing Tiktok helping BIden win against Trump?

The proof that Bytedance provides the Chinese government private data is available, if you just look at different news sources than those that agree with what you want to believe.

But is that proof of Bytedance provide data from tiktok to Chinese government? Is there any proof that tiktok provide information about US citizens to Chinese government?

[hepcat]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

sorry to pile on, but this is completely untrue. the movement to ban Tiktok started years ago (which was, ofc, long before this whole latest Middle East flare up)

Movement started years ago but it passed by bipartisan support after the conflict and the bad PR for Israel. There were also a lot of false accusation from politicians that tiktok's contents are more pro Palestinian than Israel and that Tiktok was influencing younger people to be pro Palestinian. It is likely to be the other way around, because the users of tiktok are younger people, the contents are more pro Palestinians because younger people are more pro Palestinians.

Than why isn't Twitter or other social media platforms with high Israeli support being censored?

[hepcat]

You got your fact wrong. Tik tok is not an entity sponsored by the Chinese government. As for influence US election, any proof of that? Are you accusing Tiktok helping BIden win against Trump?

The proof that Bytedance provides the Chinese government private data is available, if you just look at different news sources than those that agree with what you want to believe.

But is that proof of Bytedance provide data from tiktok to Chinese government? Is there any proof that tiktok provide information about US citizens to Chinese government?

Is there any proof supporting your belief that it's being asked to divest or be banned because of censorship beyond Romney saying it? You demand we all believe your theories by quoting someone, then when someone does it back to you, you claim it's not enough.

And heck, I even went back and provided even more evidence per professionals.

Movement started years ago but it passed by bipartisan support after the conflict and the bad PR for Israel.

It would have passed in 2020 if Bytedance hadn't agreed to divest from the Chinese and then went back on it when it realized Biden was too busy dealing with the aftermath of Trump to bother making them keep their promise.

[stessier]

I believe VR is right on the First Amendment problems with this. I don't see how the government can get away with banning or forcing them to sell. Tik Tok has a first amendment right to publish. I don't see how the ban/forced sale is narrowly tailored or falls into one of the exceptions to the first amendment. It was a really silly bill and I'm surprised it made it to law.

[Victoria Raverna]

Just noticed this part from the article:

Yu, who worked for the company in 2018, made the allegations in a recent filing for a wrongful dismissal case filed in May in the San Francisco Superior Court. In the documents submitted to the court he said ByteDance had a “superuser” credential — also known as a god credential — that enabled a special committee of Chinese Communist Party members stationed at the company to view all data collected by ByteDance including those of U.S. users.

So a disgruntled fired ex-employee claimed that. And to you that is proven? Seriously? A statement of an ex-employee that sued the company = proof?

[hepcat]

And a disgruntled GOP politician is your preferred source for the truth?

Let's just face facts: You're always going to post evidence from individuals or groups that are biased, and then claim that any rebuttal is coming from individuals or groups that are biased. It's a no win situation for everyone.

[Victoria Raverna]

That kinda show one of the reasons to ban tiktok is to silence the criticism against Israel actions in Gaza and the role of US in helping Israel. Which means the ban is a censorship and against first amendment.

sorry to pile on, but this is completely untrue. the movement to ban Tiktok started years ago (which was, ofc, long before this whole latest Middle East flare up)

Movement started years ago but it passed by bipartisan support after the conflict and the bad PR for Israel. There were also a lot of false accusation from politicians that tiktok's contents are more pro Palestinian than Israel and that Tiktok was influencing younger people to be pro Palestinian. It is likely to be the other way around, because the users of tiktok are younger people, the contents are more pro Palestinians because younger people are more pro Palestinians.

Than why isn't Twitter or other social media platforms with high Israeli support being censored?

Isn't that support my point? High pro-Palestinian speech = banned but not high pro-Israeli speech.

Why? Because the government is pro Israel and bad PR for Israel is bad PR for the government.

[hepcat]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.

[Victoria Raverna]

And a disgruntled GOP politician is your preferred source for the truth?

How can that be the comparison?

Ex-employee that sued the company vs a GOP politician who has no reason to lie about that. And also that was Romney's words in response to Blinken. Blinken didn't say that Romney was wrong.

[LordMortis]

I believe VR is right on the First Amendment problems with this. I don't see how the government can get away with banning or forcing them to sell. Tik Tok has a first amendment right to publish. I don't see how the ban/forced sale is narrowly tailored or falls into one of the exceptions to the first amendment. It was a really silly bill and I'm surprised it made it to law.

We need a legal scholar here. I don't think I agree with you

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article ... t-of-1917/