[ccvannorman]

If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. What could the US Federal Government do instead, assuming it is important to consider such platforms as per their effects on the population?

If China sold candies that contained poison and marketed them to Us children, it would be easy, since the FDA prohibits this. If the FDA didn't exist, perhaps poisoned candy sales would prompt the creation of such a regulatory body.

So I guess I oppose the ban while recognizing the danger, and suggest we consider regulating digital goods in the same manner as consumable foods; if provable harmful effects are evident then that is grounds for a ban of a product on the basis of health protection.

[Salgat]

The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Bytedance, as a Chinese company, is required by law (Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China) to provide full data access to the Chinese government on request, and they are compelled not to reveal when this occurs. Since this is done through legitimate channels (on Bytedance's side), this won't even be caught with an audit. So you have a situation where an app installed on half of America's phones shares all its data with China, along with any potential changes the government recommends for influencing the content.

[voisin]

Meta was selling data to Chinese groups and buried a report stating this until recently. This has nothing to do with national defence and everything to do with ensuring American companies control the narrative without competition.

[cscurmudgeon]

“selling” data is not in the same bucket for risk as CCP using TikTok for propaganda.

[TiredOfLife]

> Meta was selling data to Chinese groups

Source?

[WheatMillington]

>The forced divestment is for national security reasons.

Would you like to buy a bridge?

[jimnotgym]

Meta & co are required by US law to do the same for people in the rest of the world. Didn't see a huge US outcry about that, in fact I saw a lot of hate for things like GDPR

[louky]

The hate for the GDPR I read of is actually about the "allow cookie" popups that aren't needed at all are are just a form of protest by those individual sites because they are storing and selling personal information including IP addresses.

If you aren't engaged in those practices then there's no need for any GDPR annoyances for users.

I may misunderstand, I'm in America currently.

[bryanrasmussen]

The allow cookies was already there because of the cookie banner law, unfortunately GDPR did not stop the cookie law, but GDPR does say you need a way to agree to tracking etc. and to be informed when it happens so it sort of seems reasonable the allow cookies popups would be used for this.

[_bin_]

I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to harvest Chinese data and suck yen out of China, she will not be allowed to harvest American data and suck dollars out of here.

[thehappypm]

While this is a fair take, it's not what the law has in mind.

[bitshiftfaced]

China is classified as a foreign adversary, so this goes beyond trade policy. Foreign adversaries show a pattern of conduct that threaten national security. People are not comfortable with foreign adversaries having a direct line to our youth's attention and having their finger on the dial.

[_bin_]

i agree wholeheartedly. i provided this as an additional set of reasoning for people who are either America-haters or doves.

[cherry_tree]

It’s overly simplistic. It doesn’t take into account the ideals the USA was founded on (including free speech as an inalienable right), nor does it take into account the large shift in US government policy.

[thehappypm]

> If China sold candies that contained poison and marketed them to Us children, it would be easy, since the FDA prohibits this.

The FDA was created by an act of Congress, as was this ban. These are identical scenarios -- the FDA has a mandate to block certain things, as does the TikTok ban. What's being debated is the constitutionality of it; and there are arguments both ways, but it seems very likely that the ban will hold.

[jimnotgym]

I do have children in that age range and see US social media damaging them. Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?

[mcphage]

> Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?

I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened yet, although those companies are also willing to adjust policies in foreign nations—for instance, Meta saying it won't eliminate fact checking outside of the US.

[ccvannorman]

A very naive and hopeful part of me would wish for Facebook, Twitter, and other vapidness-enhancing platforms be regulated too. But the untrusting, freedom loving red-blooded American in me is also wary of government controls and power consolidation bordering on censorship. No easy answers I suppose; we'll just have to find a way to thrive in spite of platforms that profit from our wasted time.

[amarcheschi]

Hey, one platform is Chinese, the others are American. That's the difference you're looking for

[blandcoffee]

I appreciate a response like this on HN.

IF there is a problem, let's solve the root issue (which may include looking at the algo feeds of all big tech, etc).

[croes]

> felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness

A ban based on a feeling?

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

I think the US social media mega corps are kindred spirits and if TikTok is considered harmful/propaganda then so are the US products. The subject draws an uncomfortable amount of heat.

[glitchc]

I think that's where we were with seatbelts in the 1950s, tobacco in the 1920s and alcohol in the 1850s. In all of those cases, society ultimately decided that guardrails were needed.

[lxgr]

Yet imagine a law that mandates seatbelts only for non-US manufactured cars...

The main problem is the hyperoptimized addictive nature of some modern social media apps, not who makes them.

[ge96]

> Candies

Starts with an F ends in L