Many users called lawmakers' offices to complain, congressional staffers told Politico. "It's so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They're teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can't take it away," one House GOP staffer was quoted as saying.
and they still voted 50-0. really tells you something about how much these politicians are willing to listen to their constituents.
It was a 50-0 to pass the commission and then go to the House floor for a vote and then the Senate for a vote and finally signed into law by the president unless he vetoes it, which is possible imo.
Honestly, teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves, I might just call in to my local representative to voice my support of forced sale, operating restrictions, or even outright ban.
EDIT: I sent him an email.
Now do Facebook.
Love to, I think the 5 Bn USD FTC fine was a little light considering no jailtime was given. I hope their recent lawsuits lead to breaking the company up again.
what are you even trying to say here? that it’s okay for politicians to ignore entire demographics? or that it’s only okay for them to ignore entire demographics if, ultimately, it’s left up to a different group of politicians to pass the law?
i don’t use tiktok or have any interest in the app itself, but it’s still very alarming to see a vote go through 50-0 despite a “nonstop” flood of calls opposing it.
Ignore them? Gosh no. Protect them. Literally what I said.
“protect them from themselves” is what you said. which carries the connotation that they don’t know what’s best for themselves and aren’t qualified to make judgments about those things. this is different from simply “protecting them”.
To be fair, a big part of a functioning society is a government with proper regulations in place so that people are not expected to be experts in literally every field before making a purchase or performing some kind of action. Obviously, calling it "protect[ing] them from themselves," is dismissive and patronizing, but it's pretty much why we need government in the first place.
For example, the EPA recently issued a recall for ground cinnamon from certain specific (dollar store) brands due to unacceptably high levels of lead. Without the career scientists (and yes, bureaucrats) working for that regulatory agency, millions of people would have continued consuming the product and feeding it to their kids (low-income folks too in this case, given the brands) literally indefinitely.
Without the EPA, every person who buys cinnamon is what, expected to use mass spectrometry to determine the exact molecular make-up of every spice (or in the case of the EPA, literally any food or prescription drugs you may ever consume) before using?
If they didn't do their cinnamon research, then they deserved it, and the government should have no involvement? What happens in cases where companies hide dangerous issues in their products to avoid losing profits?
What if there's literally no way for anyone but a scientist, with extensive lab access and at least 4+ years of university to know that there is an issue with a product (or a construction site, or a drug, or water treatment, etc)? They're the only ones who should be able to properly avoid using a product that may kill them and their children? And even then, only when it's a product they're an expert in?
Not saying you're a libertarian, just like pointing out the obvious things that make it so so stupid.
i agree with everything you’ve said here. and i liked the EPA example. sorry if what i said came across as libertarian, that was not my intention.
i was just trying to push back against the “young people don’t know what’s best for themselves” mentality in the other post.
although, to be clear, i think the current state of social media does have quite a few problems that need addressing, and more regulation on that would certainly be welcome.
Would love to see the science or other expert opinions that is being used to justify this ban then.
I haven't heard anything except politicians making vague references to spying or other things we allow from domestic services.
Yeah honestly if a bunch of addicted teens and old people were calling me screaming that I can't take away their drug of choice when that's not even what's happening, and it's not being taken away just moved to where there can be more control on quality.... Then I would be really considering the damage this is doing to them.
I don't know if supporting the junkies being taken advantage of is the altruistic take that these "absolute freedom" supporters think it is.
teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves
Please, big daddy government, protect me from the freedom of choice. I cannot be trusted to consume without your permission.
LMAO pay attention in school, kid, you seem like the type who is going to need it.
They should really educate people about foreign threats like the CCP and Kremlin.
Me when I find out that it's illegal to sell your organs for profit
Nanny State.
"Mr. Legislator I am 84 and I need my Heroin but the federal government keeps cracking down on my supplier, please stop taking away all my Heroin Mr. Legislator. Also, force my bank to let me transfer 85,000 USD to India, it's really important that I do that before the 27th."
Yes. This is called Nanny State.
Rather than educate the populace, take away the tools. Of course, another tool will just rise to the surface but it will make a lot of people feel really good that they did something.
I do appreciate all of the reactionary statements. I don't use TikTok but I do believe in freedom. Reducing freedoms, no matter how well intentioned does not solve societies problems.
You can't educate dementia away. You can educate youth away, but that takes years, which would effectively be a ban for them. TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation and by extension their associated foreign dictatorship.
Absolute freedom should not extend to harming each other.
TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation
That pretty much describes every corporation in existence.
Some of them provide utility and some don't, which is why we don't allow children to drink, smoke, or gamble. If a company providing those goods and services targets those demographics it gets political action.
Welcome to the nuance of society and the modern world.
But they're not disallowing children smoking, drinking, or gambling here. It's more akin to disallowing children from drinking Smirnoff, smoking Marlboros, or playing blackjack and nothing else.
Reigning any of them in is a step in the right direction.
If this had anything to do with children, they'd be reigning them all in at once instead of wasting time singling one of many out.
Even equating the arm of a militaristic expansionist dictatorship to a tech giant is disingenuous to its core, Google collects a shit ton of data but even that pales in comparison to TikTok's absurd collection. But all of that aside, your argument is shit. Reign in every tech giant at once? Why? Why the hell is it all or none? I don't even think the US Federal Government in its current state has enough authority to try that, at this point.
That's like choosing not to take a doctor's license away unless you can take away every bad doctor's license in the USA at one time.
How do you suddenly go from comparing these platforms to alcohol and gambling, saying they have no actual utility, and saying 'every little bit helps' when it comes to regulation to asking why these companies actions should even be regulated and why the law should apply to them all equally, even going as far as comparing them to the role doctors play in society?
That's honestly one of the most abrupt 180-degree spins I've ever seen.
TikTok is one of hundreds of vectors to swindle the senile and I doubt it's even in the top 10.
Grandpa needs to have someone else handling his finances. It's not the governments job and let's not pretend this bill is about keeping grandpas money safe.
From what I read, the calls actually evaporated opposition to the bill.
Which, I'm NGL, if you're worried about an app being used by a foreign adversary to encourage anti-social behavior in your youth, a bunch of people calling in acting like drug addicts getting their drugs taken away is only going to erase doubts.
It doesn't help that they'd even be more justified when it's known that it was caused by users getting pushed notified by Tik Tok to do it.
Encouraging people to contact their representatives and demand action? Congress clearly can't have this. How will they do their jobs if they are constantly forced to engage with their constituents?
Call to action from, say, activist groups is very different from call to action from a billion-dollar company. This does make me really worried about how much influencer TikTok has on people ngl
How many of us stood up for net neutrality at the behest of Reddit?
In my opinion, considering Tiktok's algo they had the best circumstance to notify a mix of their users more aligned with the actual electorate. The fact they ended up with the worst representation of their user base when it came to confirming the suspicions of politicians says everything.
It also tells you something about all the supposed gridlock in Washington that can magically evaporate when there's money and power to be gained from it.
Are they "taking it away" though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?
you’re taking it as a given that bytedance will sell the app if this law passes. there is a chance that they won’t want to sell and then the app will be banned. (but i think this unlikely.)
also, if i’m understanding things correctly, there’s the possibility that they do sell and the app still gets banned. the article says
An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale "would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary."
depending on who the next president is, there’s no guarantee that they’ll say any sale will result in the company not being controlled by a foreign adversary. (although this past is just speculation.)
anyways. this bill will certainly raise the chances that the app will be banned in the US. (and it opens the door for other apps to get banned if the US doesn’t like the country they were developed in.)
I also just noticed in the article:
TikTok urged its users to protest the bill, sending a notification that said, "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok... Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO."
Also from a BBC article about the same thing:
Earlier, users of the app had received a notification urging them to act to "stop a TikTok shutdown."
So they were literally sending out misleading notifications (because a forced sale is not a total ban), and then the users wrote to Congress based on that...
The probability that they will sell seems really high to me, as the same thing almost happened back in 2020.
There's no guarantee that making the sale will prevent the ban.
Yeah but if they sell then it's someone else stuck holding the bags so why wouldn't they?
because its not in the corporation's interest to incur the expense and organizational disruption if they're still going to get banned anyway - profit is maximized by continuing with business as usual instead of spending resources attempting to reach compliance
and they still voted 50-0. really tells you something about how much these politicians are willing to listen to their constituents.
It was a 50-0 to pass the commission and then go to the House floor for a vote and then the Senate for a vote and finally signed into law by the president unless he vetoes it, which is possible imo.
Honestly, teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves, I might just call in to my local representative to voice my support of forced sale, operating restrictions, or even outright ban.
EDIT: I sent him an email.
Now do Facebook.
Love to, I think the 5 Bn USD FTC fine was a little light considering no jailtime was given. I hope their recent lawsuits lead to breaking the company up again.
what are you even trying to say here? that it’s okay for politicians to ignore entire demographics? or that it’s only okay for them to ignore entire demographics if, ultimately, it’s left up to a different group of politicians to pass the law?
i don’t use tiktok or have any interest in the app itself, but it’s still very alarming to see a vote go through 50-0 despite a “nonstop” flood of calls opposing it.
Ignore them? Gosh no. Protect them. Literally what I said.
“protect them from themselves” is what you said. which carries the connotation that they don’t know what’s best for themselves and aren’t qualified to make judgments about those things. this is different from simply “protecting them”.
To be fair, a big part of a functioning society is a government with proper regulations in place so that people are not expected to be experts in literally every field before making a purchase or performing some kind of action. Obviously, calling it "protect[ing] them from themselves," is dismissive and patronizing, but it's pretty much why we need government in the first place.
For example, the EPA recently issued a recall for ground cinnamon from certain specific (dollar store) brands due to unacceptably high levels of lead. Without the career scientists (and yes, bureaucrats) working for that regulatory agency, millions of people would have continued consuming the product and feeding it to their kids (low-income folks too in this case, given the brands) literally indefinitely.
Without the EPA, every person who buys cinnamon is what, expected to use mass spectrometry to determine the exact molecular make-up of every spice (or in the case of the EPA, literally any food or prescription drugs you may ever consume) before using?
If they didn't do their cinnamon research, then they deserved it, and the government should have no involvement? What happens in cases where companies hide dangerous issues in their products to avoid losing profits?
What if there's literally no way for anyone but a scientist, with extensive lab access and at least 4+ years of university to know that there is an issue with a product (or a construction site, or a drug, or water treatment, etc)? They're the only ones who should be able to properly avoid using a product that may kill them and their children? And even then, only when it's a product they're an expert in?
Not saying you're a libertarian, just like pointing out the obvious things that make it so so stupid.
i agree with everything you’ve said here. and i liked the EPA example. sorry if what i said came across as libertarian, that was not my intention.
i was just trying to push back against the “young people don’t know what’s best for themselves” mentality in the other post.
although, to be clear, i think the current state of social media does have quite a few problems that need addressing, and more regulation on that would certainly be welcome.
Would love to see the science or other expert opinions that is being used to justify this ban then.
I haven't heard anything except politicians making vague references to spying or other things we allow from domestic services.
It's just politics.
TikTok Data Harvests: Report by AU Cybersecurity Firm or if you can't be bothered to get past the paywall the news coverage of the event.
Misinformation on TikTok: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.001
Adolescents more susceptible to product placement on TikTok: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107723
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
news coverage
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Those things are exactly the same and it is indeed what I just said. Problem?
Yeah honestly if a bunch of addicted teens and old people were calling me screaming that I can't take away their drug of choice when that's not even what's happening, and it's not being taken away just moved to where there can be more control on quality.... Then I would be really considering the damage this is doing to them.
I don't know if supporting the junkies being taken advantage of is the altruistic take that these "absolute freedom" supporters think it is.
Please, big daddy government, protect me from the freedom of choice. I cannot be trusted to consume without your permission.
LMAO pay attention in school, kid, you seem like the type who is going to need it.
They should really educate people about foreign threats like the CCP and Kremlin.
Me when I find out that it's illegal to sell your organs for profit
Nanny State.
"Mr. Legislator I am 84 and I need my Heroin but the federal government keeps cracking down on my supplier, please stop taking away all my Heroin Mr. Legislator. Also, force my bank to let me transfer 85,000 USD to India, it's really important that I do that before the 27th."
Yes. This is called Nanny State.
Rather than educate the populace, take away the tools. Of course, another tool will just rise to the surface but it will make a lot of people feel really good that they did something.
I do appreciate all of the reactionary statements. I don't use TikTok but I do believe in freedom. Reducing freedoms, no matter how well intentioned does not solve societies problems.
You can't educate dementia away. You can educate youth away, but that takes years, which would effectively be a ban for them. TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation and by extension their associated foreign dictatorship.
Absolute freedom should not extend to harming each other.
That pretty much describes every corporation in existence.
Some of them provide utility and some don't, which is why we don't allow children to drink, smoke, or gamble. If a company providing those goods and services targets those demographics it gets political action.
Welcome to the nuance of society and the modern world.
But they're not disallowing children smoking, drinking, or gambling here. It's more akin to disallowing children from drinking Smirnoff, smoking Marlboros, or playing blackjack and nothing else.
Reigning any of them in is a step in the right direction.
If this had anything to do with children, they'd be reigning them all in at once instead of wasting time singling one of many out.
Even equating the arm of a militaristic expansionist dictatorship to a tech giant is disingenuous to its core, Google collects a shit ton of data but even that pales in comparison to TikTok's absurd collection. But all of that aside, your argument is shit. Reign in every tech giant at once? Why? Why the hell is it all or none? I don't even think the US Federal Government in its current state has enough authority to try that, at this point.
That's like choosing not to take a doctor's license away unless you can take away every bad doctor's license in the USA at one time.
How do you suddenly go from comparing these platforms to alcohol and gambling, saying they have no actual utility, and saying 'every little bit helps' when it comes to regulation to asking why these companies actions should even be regulated and why the law should apply to them all equally, even going as far as comparing them to the role doctors play in society?
That's honestly one of the most abrupt 180-degree spins I've ever seen.
No it's not, you absolute buffoon. It's a step in the direction of narrative control.
If punishing corporations more and more as time goes on is part of narrative control then I want narrative control's dick deep inside of me.
TikTok is one of hundreds of vectors to swindle the senile and I doubt it's even in the top 10.
Grandpa needs to have someone else handling his finances. It's not the governments job and let's not pretend this bill is about keeping grandpas money safe.
From what I read, the calls actually evaporated opposition to the bill.
Which, I'm NGL, if you're worried about an app being used by a foreign adversary to encourage anti-social behavior in your youth, a bunch of people calling in acting like drug addicts getting their drugs taken away is only going to erase doubts.
It doesn't help that they'd even be more justified when it's known that it was caused by users getting pushed notified by Tik Tok to do it.
Encouraging people to contact their representatives and demand action? Congress clearly can't have this. How will they do their jobs if they are constantly forced to engage with their constituents?
Call to action from, say, activist groups is very different from call to action from a billion-dollar company. This does make me really worried about how much influencer TikTok has on people ngl
How many of us stood up for net neutrality at the behest of Reddit?
In my opinion, considering Tiktok's algo they had the best circumstance to notify a mix of their users more aligned with the actual electorate. The fact they ended up with the worst representation of their user base when it came to confirming the suspicions of politicians says everything.
It also tells you something about all the supposed gridlock in Washington that can magically evaporate when there's money and power to be gained from it.
Are they "taking it away" though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?
you’re taking it as a given that bytedance will sell the app if this law passes. there is a chance that they won’t want to sell and then the app will be banned. (but i think this unlikely.)
also, if i’m understanding things correctly, there’s the possibility that they do sell and the app still gets banned. the article says
depending on who the next president is, there’s no guarantee that they’ll say any sale will result in the company not being controlled by a foreign adversary. (although this past is just speculation.)
anyways. this bill will certainly raise the chances that the app will be banned in the US. (and it opens the door for other apps to get banned if the US doesn’t like the country they were developed in.)
I also just noticed in the article:
Also from a BBC article about the same thing:
So they were literally sending out misleading notifications (because a forced sale is not a total ban), and then the users wrote to Congress based on that...
The probability that they will sell seems really high to me, as the same thing almost happened back in 2020.
There's no guarantee that making the sale will prevent the ban.
Yeah but if they sell then it's someone else stuck holding the bags so why wouldn't they?
because its not in the corporation's interest to incur the expense and organizational disruption if they're still going to get banned anyway - profit is maximized by continuing with business as usual instead of spending resources attempting to reach compliance