Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks China The Courts

TikTok is One Step Closer to Being Banned in the US (cnn.com) 208

Posted by EditorDavid from the clock-is-Tikking dept.
"TikTok has lost its bid to strike down a law that could result in the platform being banned in the United States," reports CNN.

A U.S. federal appeals court just unanimously ruled in favor of the new U.S. law requiring TikTok's China-based owners to either sell the app next month or face an effective ban in the United States. Denying TikTok's argument that the law was unconstitutional, the judges found that the law does not "contravene the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," nor does it "violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws"... After the [January 25] deadline, U.S. app stores and internet services could face hefty fines for hosting TikTok if it is not sold. (Under the legislation, President Biden may issue a one-time extension of the deadline.)

In a statement, TikTok indicated it would appeal the decision. "The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans' right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," said company spokesperson Michael Hughes. "Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025"....

"People in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing," the judges said. "What the Act targets is the PRC's ability to manipulate the content covertly. Understood in that way, the Government's justification is wholly consonant with the First Amendment."
The judges also wrote that "in part precisely because of the platform's expansive reach, Congress and multiple Presidents determined that divesting it from the PRC's control is essential to protect our national security... Congress judged it necessary to assume that risk given the grave national-security threats it perceived."

CNN notes that ByteDance "has previously indicated it will not sell TikTok."

TikTok is One Step Closer to Being Banned in the US More | Reply

TikTok is One Step Closer to Being Banned in the US

Comments Filter:

  • Selling Tiktok's brand and website for the US for Billions, with no negative effects on their business elsewhere (they don't have to sell their algorithms, the site has plenty of value without). Or getting absolutely nothing.

    Only the threat of tiger chairs would keep them from selling.

    • I thought the requirement was that they sell the company, not the brand and website. And how exactly do you only sell the US website or the US brand for that matter? I think this is clearly the first step toward an American version of a Great Firewall. But they aren't going to start arresting people who use Tik Tok. At least not yet.

      • how exactly do you only sell the US website or the US brand for that matter?

        Bytedance can rip out anything from the server software they want to retain, if necessary replacing it with some minimum viable alternatives cobbled together from open source (not as a legal requirement, but to increase what they can get for the sale). Then sell the US subsidiary, with server software, accounts for US users and with an indefinite contract for redirects from tiktok.com for US IPs.

    • Yes- if you don't sell me your property for this very generous price, that proves you're a Communist, and I'll report you to the Committee of Un-American Activities.

      Fuck you, drooling mouth-breather.

  • Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Friday December 06, 2024 @03:34PM (#64996443)

    A communist run company yelling about 1st amendment rights. Peddle your wares in the PRC where it belongs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Is that any way to talk about Elon's Xitter?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 )

      A communist run company yelling about 1st amendment rights. Peddle your wares in the PRC where it belongs.

      Sure, because America's capitalist Tech Bro elite can't outcompete a communist social media company .... LOL.

    • Ya, gotta watch out for those billionaire communists.

    • Most people don't know what the First Amendment prevents. It doesn't control "free speech" on the internet among its users. It is related to citizen's ability to speak freely on government issues with the government. It has nothing to do with stupid Tik Tok.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So Musk is the new DOGE guy and first lady, does that mean that Twitter is run by the GOP?

  • So I'm guessing Google, Microsoft, CloudFlare, Akamai, Facebook, Apple, Samsung are next, yes?

  • Social media is essentially an unrestricted propaganda channel right to the citizenry. Any country that doesn't lock that down at the border is leaving an easy, cheap intelligence exploit just waiting to be used.

    It ain't great domestically either, but that's another problem.

  • If the SC takes the case, I predict they'll hold off a decision until Trump returns to office. He can then rescind it, allowing the SC to drop and wash their hands of this matter.

    • Trump won't rescind it. This case started from one of Trump's executive orders from his first term. The PRC just delayed the implementation through appeals.

    • I'm not a master of U.S. legislative procedures but I don't think a president can unilaterally rescind a U.S. law after it has been signed. I'm pretty sure Congress would have to sponsor a new bill to undo the old one and then pass it through both chambers and have Trump sign it. Or Trump could just refuse to enforce the law.
  • Can we stop mourning this? The demise of any social media company is a good thing for the economy and the society at large. The only bad thing about TikTok's demise is that the government is doing it under a special law written for the purpose. While the government's initiative is alarming, it's clearly legal because TikTok's ownership is foreign and highly problematic. American companies are safe.

    It's a bad precedent, but it's a wonderful outcome. Fuck Tiktok, X, Linkedin and all the other "social" media

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
      Yes, just watch TV and read NY Times the rest of your life. Keep that bubble nice n thick.
      • Given that social media necessitated the invention of the term âoefilter bubbleâ, you are either being sarcastic or exhibiting how clueless you are. Letâ(TM)s make the example really concrete: nobody ever went to a Virginia pizzeria armed to the hilt to stop pedophilia because they were watching network TV news. No one ever showed up in Dallas waiting for JFK jr to show up because they read the NYT. Those who did did so because of social media. So, are you making a joke or are you clueless?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
          You really have so few examples of conspiracy theories doing harm that all you can think of as a cautionary tale is someone firing a gun at the ground in a pizzeria or showing up at an airport? Try harder
          • If youâ(TM)re so smart, give ONE, just one, counterexample. But you canâ(TM)t, because none exists. Or youâ(TM)re so brainwashed that you canâ(TM)t engage in a conversation. Can you provide a counterexample?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
              I agree, there aren't many examples of them being harmful. I'm not sure why you tried to list some. You could have blamed some of the spread of covid on them, which although ridiculous is at least a common belief.

    • The only bad thing about TikTok's demise is that the government is doing it under a special law written for the purpose.

      Indeed. It's an obvious bill of attainder.

      While the government's initiative is alarming, it's clearly legal because TikTok's ownership is foreign and highly problematic.

      Not according to this judge.

      American companies are safe.

      Sure aren't. At least not under the jurisprudence established here.

      It's a bad precedent

      It is, indeed.

      but it's a wonderful outcome.

      Your machiavellian thinking is dangerous. Be careful that the US Legislature doesn't consider you a threat to national security, a President agrees, and the Judiciary says "If 2 branches agree, it can't be wrong."

      But hey- You can always run for president [wikipedia.org] from prison and pardon yourself if you win.

  • There seem to be USA way which say american social media companies like facebook is ok to give data to NSA which can profile users but China cannot do same with tiktok.

    Maybe Europe should ban both facebook and tiktok etc because they collect data from european people to organizations that are not european..

  • The way media manipulate the US public is extraordinary. There's no way to counter the lies they're consistently fed from their real government. It's all just a positive feedback loop...so it just gets worse and worse as time goes on, and you can't even see it happening.

  • the US supreme court is extremely protective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday December 06, 2024 @05:05PM (#64996673)
    of US citizens right to free speech. It's one of the things that defines the country. We tolerate speech that is downright offensive, racist, sexist, classist, and all the other -ists. We tolerate straight-up hate speech that would get you thrown into a European prison. Heck, we even tolerate speech that advocates violence, as long as the guy isn't actively holding a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in another.

    But TikTok is a Chinese company, and it's been shown that the CCP has direct access and control to the company, it's data, and it's algorithms. US free speech rights do NOT apply to foreign governments. Last time I stated that, I got instantly downmodded, but it's a hard fact. Countries are under zero obligation to allow other countries free game inside their borders. This goes both ways. We ban Chinese and Russian propaganda - and they ban ours, Russia and North Korea ban basically everything. Iran bans anything that might allow their men to be corrupted by the sight of a feminine wrist or ankle.

    I'm personally in favor of extremely broad free speech protections, but countries get to set their own rules. If we don't want a massive CCP-controlled social media platform inside our borders, it's our prerogative to ban it.

    Tiktok will have no luck with the US supreme court.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
      "This goes both ways. We ban Chinese and Russian propaganda" You 100% contradicted your first paragraph with this

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by flink ( 18449 )

      the US supreme court is extremely protective of US citizens right to free speech.

      It has nothing to do with citizenship. The 1st amendment is a restraint on the power of Congress to restrain speech: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". If corporations are people and money is speech (cf Citizens United), then this move should be unconstitutional, full stop.

      Foreign companies or non-citizens who are otherwise operating here legally have as much a right to free speech in US jurisdictions as any citizen.

      But TikTok is a Chinese company, and it's been shown that the CCP has direct access and control to the company, it's data, and it's algorithms.

      Ever hear of the Voice of America? How about the FISA court

    • Re:the US supreme court is extremely protective (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Friday December 06, 2024 @06:56PM (#64996933)

      The legal entity that owns and controls TikTok in the US is TikTok LLC (which is legally headquartered in California)

      The legal entity that owns and controls Facebook in the US is Meta Platforms, Inc.(which is legally headquartered in California)

      There is nothing in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that says that Meta Platforms Inc. gets first amendment protection and TikTok LLC does not.

      Yes the US government gets to say who can operate businesses in the US (e.g. airlines flying domestically in the US need to be US owned) but it doesn't get to restrict the speech of business that are otherwise lawfully operating.

      • TikTok LLC is itself owned by bytedance, a company headquartered in China and founded/run by Chinese nationals, and given the nature of buisness in China it definitionally has the involvement of the Chinese state.

        Spinning off TikTok LLC into a wholely American based enterprise without infrastructure in China or reporting to Chinese leadership is the advocated option, and Bytedance continues to refuse. They could even still own the asset, provided their control was provably muted. It's not even remotely a sp

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      US free speech rights do NOT apply to foreign governments.

      According to the First Amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Nothing in that supports your position.
      US free speech rights apply in general to any speech by anybody. (Exceptions such as criminal conspiracy are not really about speech.)

    • You idiot.

      The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to citizens. It restricts the Federal Government.
      The 1st amendment doesn't beat around the bush here. Congress shall make no law.

      This is a constitutional runaround granted in the name of "national security".
      This means a Judge has said, "The Bill of Rights doesn't matter where National Security is involved."

      National Security concerns have been aimed, successfully, at US citizens before. [wikipedia.org]

      The blind hatemongering of you morons will be the fucking death of thi
      • I’m pretty sure the supreme court considers “the people” to be “US citizens” of some similar definition. Thats just my guess - the interpretation is up to them.

        As pointed out by someone else, TikTok is demonstrably controlled by the CCP through a series of shell companies. Somehow, I suspect our republic will do just fine if we act to prevent the CCP from underhandedly influencing US opinion through social-media algorithm manipulation and harvesting petabytes of data our c
        • I'm not sure how it was unclear.

          The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to citizens. It restricts the Federal Government.
          Find the words "the people" in:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

          I'll grant you that the second half does say:

          or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          Which makes sense.
          Citizens have the right to protest and petition their government.
          The prohibition against the control of speech is absolute.

          We could argue that the second half applies to the first, but if we do that, we throw out the entirety of modern 2A jurisprudence.

    • Complete BS. TikTok is based and controlled in SINGAPORE. Singapore is not part of China, nor are it citizens Chinese. Singapore law is super strict. It is offensive to suggest the Singapore entity takes orders. Singapore wants to do a 'Ireland' and keep lucrative business, so at a national interest level, the CEO or whoever will be under pain-of-death like penalty to make it work. OK certain .cn historic events are censored - but in the USA so is a lot of other stuff under FISA or the like orders. Legally

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's just such a shame that so many young and left leaning Americans prefer TikTok for expressing themselves.

      I'm sure someone will buy it for pennies, and then turn it into the next Twitter.

    • So what you are saying is that Americans are too stupid and uneducated to apply critical thinking. If you have freedom of speech it applies to everyone, citizen or non-citizen. Even spies have freedom of speech.

  • The middle class is being squeezed out of existence and, for the most part, it's been relatively peaceful because Americans have plenty of ways to keep themselves preoccupied. But if you start banning the forms of entertainment that dull their minds, they might spend more time thinking about who's been fucking them recently. Banning TikTok will generate a ton of discontentment in a country that already feels like a powder keg and I just can't see the advantages being worth the risk. Congress has barely p

  • so much for free speech (Score:3)

    by gawbl ( 941021 ) on Friday December 06, 2024 @07:16PM (#64996997)
    I've never used TikTok, but if the government can do this to TikTok, they can do this to anyone. Like, Slashdot.
    https://www.techdirt.com/2024/... [techdirt.com]

  • Biggest hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Friday December 06, 2024 @09:43PM (#64997265) Homepage
    That's the US, the biggest hypocrites in the world. It's not like content on facebook, instagram or youtube is any different from the content on TikTok, but hee, let's ban TikTok because it's from a chinese company instead of an american company and TikTok is taking away money from youtube and facebook.. The amount of US propaganda on facebook/youtube is even worse as the PRC propaganda in TikTok, but explain to me what PRC propaganda is being spread on TikTok?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close