| HN Mirror

Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives.

But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it.

Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

ta20240528 520 days ago

> hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple.

'cos we're all equal, no?

The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US).

I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy.

> 'cos we're all equal, no?

No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.)

On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets.

If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.

bilekas 520 days ago

> If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.

I do t use tiktok and have no skin in the game as an EU resident, but setting a precedent for this kind of behaviour to permit clthe government to simply block anything it wants is basically following in CCPs footsteps, that's certainly not a good thing in my eyes.

This is not a new precedent. The US government has placed foreign-ownership restrictions on media companies since before the public internet was a thing. The only difference here is that it's targeted at a specific company, but I'm not really up in arms about that, even though I think they definitely could have written the law without naming ByteDance or TikTok specifically.

xp84 520 days ago

I feel like takes like these are coming from a place of extreme naivete, or worse, nihilism. Either people don't understand why it's problematic that our most influential social media platform among basically everyone age 0-30 is fully controlled by the CCP, or people really think the CCP wouldn't use its ability to control any Chinese company to aggressively mold US public opinion in concert with their inevitable invasion of the democratic country Taiwan,

or... the nihilistic option:

People know China would engage in information warfare using TikTok in a situation like that, but they foolishly think the CCP is on even moral ground with free democracies so none of this matters, and we've gotta keep the funny musical memes flowing.

For all one's misgivings about the US -- and there are many valid ones! -- before deciding these governments are equal, talk to a Chinese political dissident, if you can find one, since they sometimes disappear.

mrighele 520 days ago

After the invasion of Ukraine, the EU blocked a number of outlets for spreading pro-Russian disinformation (RT, Sputnik for example) so this would be nothing new.

yyyfb 520 days ago

As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US

mystified5016 520 days ago

Ah, but you see, pigs are in fact more equal than other animals

HenryBemis 520 days ago

Numerous examples of China-says-jump-everyone-says-how-high.

NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".

1bn customers = a lot of money. A company that will kiss the ring will do the right thing by its shareholders and a nasty thing against humanity. I am 200% sure that Apple has given the keys for all users/phones/servers in China to the gov/CCP and nobody complained.

If North Korea had 1bn potential customers, we would be seeing Kim very differently.

We are cattle. It's all a 1984-ish sham.

Historically China has been so large and 'diverse' (not to be confused with DEI) (like India and Russia). It's not "one chinese person is just like anyone else". There are multiple Republics/States/etc. It takes an emperor to keep together an empire. And that usually requires (plenty of) violence.

Communism is built to make people suffer, remove individuality and requires total obedience and personal reformation to be the 'good citizen'. You and me both are EU citizens. We are all different and we respect/accept each other. In China if you disagree, you disappear. They would very much like to do the same to the rest of the world. And one day they will, just not yet. I hope they implode before they do (like all empires).

(apologies for the grim tone)(I suggest "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order by Ray Dalio": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8)

https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-...

licenede 520 days ago

Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer.

Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India.

You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this year.

usr1106 520 days ago

> unlike the US

The US is not a master piece of freedom. Want to market or own foreign shares? Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?

Yes, China is absolutely worse. But the US is not a good example.

I never claimed the US was perfect, just better. I think using it as an example is fine. No country is perfect by any metric; everything is a matter of comparison over who is better or worse on a particular thing.

> Want to market or own foreign shares?

ADRs work for that, no?

> Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?

I agree those things are bad, but they have nothing to do with market access, which is the topic at hand.

dboreham 520 days ago

I have a London stock exchange trading account with Schwab. I think I opened it online. The only catch is that I can only deposit or withdraw funds via my US Schwab account.

PittleyDunkin 520 days ago

Well if we aren't going to get the actual fruits of capitalism I'm for damn sure going to fight it tooth and nail at home. Shit sucks and I can't think of anyone I trust less than an American capitalist.

alfiedotwtf 520 days ago

> The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US)

Is there any reason you’re skipping the past 40+ years of turmoil in the Middle East purely from the US trying to control oil fields? Because Iran would like a word with, and there’s a hell lot of other countries behind them waiting their turn

mingus88 520 days ago

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but the US obviously doesn't have any issue meddling in other country's economies or political systems. The US also obviously allows foreigners to business in the US without many restrictions. Is this the "free market" I keep hearing about? I don't know.

The OP was contrasting this with China, that does not allow foreigners access to their markets. As a regular American, quite honestly, I would like a bit of protectionism from the US, as I recently bought a house and had to compete with cash offers from Chinese banks. It's insane to me that we allow foreigners to buy property here, while our own citizens are being increasingly priced out of our own country.

tailsdog 520 days ago

I'm pretty sure Meta apps, at least Facebook, are banned in China still. Apple complies with the Chinese government and removes banned apps otherwise it can not operate there. I think even Tiktok itself is banned in China, there is a special version just for the Chinese market so their consumers can not see global content.

There is no such ban. Microsoft operates tons of services in China. Internet companies just need to host all Chinese in China using an approved provider. This is the exact same requirement extended to Tiktok, for ages US tiktok data is stored in Oracle cloud with full audit access by appointed American firms.

yyyfb 520 days ago

Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. They are not in the same business. Meta is in the social networking domain, which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security. The "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" gave them good reason to believe that online social networks were a driver of societal change too powerful not to control. And they control it very very tightly.

mitrevf 520 days ago

Im pretty sure there is no ban per se. They just say: "either put your servers in our jurisdiction or gtfo of here", to which Meta and co. voluntarily decide to not enter the market. CCP still advertises as open to foreign companies though

immibis 520 days ago

So does Europe btw and they comply with that.

raincole 520 days ago

Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.

Apple is quite a special case since iPhone ecosystem creates many jobs in China. If Apple managed to move jobs to India (or wherever cheap labor is), Chinese government will stop being nice to them.

And even then, right now in China, iCloud service is run by Guizhou cloud, not Apple.

JetSpiegel 520 days ago

> Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.

Yeah, and that reason was incompetence, it's not for lack of trying.

bsder 520 days ago

1) China already exerts massive control over all of their social medias via social credit censoring.

2) China absolutely did ban most external social media and forces those that remain to hold data locally.

3) China still has the Great Firewall that everybody forgets about.

4) "He does it too" is the argument a two year old uses and should be accorded the same level of respect.

bhhaskin 520 days ago

They already do and it has been that way since "opening" up their markets.

Angostura 520 days ago

If I recall correctly, Apple isn’t allowed to run iCloud services in China, they are run and controlled by a local company

throw0101c 520 days ago

> Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.

onethought 520 days ago

Which specific owner is the Chinese government?

kelseydh 520 days ago

Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?

You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.

The US is simply reciprocating.

kelseydh 520 days ago

I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.

This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.

timhowwan 520 days ago

Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs

India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...

1659447091 520 days ago

It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives this power to future administrations.

It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Not, All your app are belong to us.

johnny22 520 days ago

Does the law said it has to be sold to a US entity? I think it just can't be run by "adversary"

mjevans 520 days ago

More fair would have been a restriction based on some framework like...

+ Public forum or utility

+ Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population

= Majority Ownership of corporate division and management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held within country OR a security partnered country (the easiest criteria for that might be they have an obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).

That way it isn't specific about any given platform or company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.

josephcsible 520 days ago

But if the EU or Canada or Australia bought it, that would fulfill the terms of the law.

yyyfb 520 days ago

EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a matter of national security. TikTok, and social networking in general, has been one for some time now. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor thanks to social networks.

US on the other hand now has its social media controlled by oligarchs, not much better maybe.

linkregister 520 days ago

What is your opinion on India's ban of TikTok a few years ago?

tgma 520 days ago

You do realize many US companies are not practically allowed to operate in some European jurisdictions? Uber and Amazon come to mind.

blackeyeblitzar 520 days ago

They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.

To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly reduces that “free market price”. Technically it’s certainly not “free” anymore..

Pyxl101 520 days ago

Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.

kelseydh 520 days ago

The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.

> The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world.

This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US.

ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner.

I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.

That's false. The US law requires TikTok to be sold to a non-adversary. A US company could buy it, or some German or Spanish company, and either would fulfill the requirements to avoid a ban in the US.

> No other country could get away with demanding this.

TikTok is already banned in India. Brasil banned Twitter for a while until they caved to Brasil's demands.

linkregister 520 days ago

India banned TikTok a few years ago. Brazil banned X until it agreed to take down posts in violation of Brazilian law. The European Union fines US-based tech companies frequently.

"Entitlement" in the context of nations is irrelevant. Nations exercise power in accordance with their interests.

josephcsible 520 days ago

> The United States here feels entitled to own and run

It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

Well.. SAP could buy it. Or some other European tech company that could afford it..

fc417fc802 520 days ago

> The world is more than just China and the United States.

But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.

Surely this is sarcasm?

Yes absolutely. China.

You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.

And why do you think Google and Facebook don’t even offer their services there?

55555 520 days ago

> You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.

I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim.

"As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."

wqaatwt 519 days ago

True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though.

And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).

olalonde 520 days ago

What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_inv...

wqaatwt 519 days ago

They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any).

Passenger cars were removed in 2021.

However:

> .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited.

So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China.

There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited.

Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.

bluesnews 520 days ago

They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they can't operate in the country if they don't sell.

They have a choice to leave the country or follow the rules.

Timber-6539 520 days ago

Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre ultimatum for the owners of the app.

Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..).

I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.

xcrunner529 520 days ago

Where you launch in a place where the government actually controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.

Roark66 520 days ago

Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like).

Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China.

As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .

rsingel 520 days ago

Fox News, Twitter and Meta are far worse influences on American society than TikTok.

And every big US platform is just a big siphon for the NSA when it comes to non U.S. persons.

The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.

It's the tech policy analog of the Iraq War (on the level of stupidity, loss of standing, inevitable consequences etc).

Not saying this ban is equivalent to a decision that killed 1M+ people, lead to ISIS, and created the migrant crisis and more

mcosta 520 days ago

> The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.

Your adversary does not care about morals, but will leverage yours in his favour.

eru 520 days ago

Well, different standards apply for government than for private companies.

neycoda 519 days ago

The government is not a company regardless of how many doofuses want to run it like one.

EDEdDNEdDYFaN 520 days ago

lol perfect

nico 521 days ago

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement

They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them

Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

TeaBrain 521 days ago

The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those who already had the app installed. It just prevented new updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the law is just the second act.

honorious 521 days ago

The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they continued to provide services to Bytedance.

As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the app isn't distributed in the US anymore.

TeaBrain 521 days ago

There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok appears to have just preemptively shut down the app before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.

dmix 521 days ago

Even without following the letter of the law it's entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150 million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet.

It was a gambit used for net neutrality in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day

nightpool 520 days ago

Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one claiming that they were just "following the law", that's what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok was making a political point by shutting down, then you agree with the person you're replying to.

nthingtohide 520 days ago

Such compromises happen between companies as well when a particular app is popular. Facebook and Uber accessing private java apis which meant Google couldn't change the internals as these apps are popular.

Sure that may be smart to forward interest.

Nico argued TikTok made the minimum change required by law.

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-start-shu...

Oracle was shutting them down shortly after the clock struck midnight Sunday GMT. [1]

supriyo-biswas 520 days ago

I believe Tiktok shut down the app in India in the same way without being "obligated to" either before the order came into effect, albeit without the dramatic messaging.

(The latter part is probably because Tiktok's banning was not particulaly divisive within the population as it is in the US.)

murukesh_s 520 days ago

I don't know exact figures, but when Tiktok was banned, Instagram was really popular - due to being pushed by Facebook, which was really really popular in India by then. None of my friends were on Tiktok, but all where there on Instagram. The reels thing was not popular but Facebook linked the account automatically and you just keep adding Facebook friends there as well.

Tiktok had a better algorithm (to get hooked) but Instagram eventually caught up (with algo)..

creato 520 days ago

The dramatic messaging was entirely the point. India probably did not have an easily exploitable target for such a message, so there was no point in trying that there.

WrongAssumption 520 days ago

Yes there is.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-start-shu...

russli1993 520 days ago

Oracle did shut them down last night, if Google and Apple have to drop their apps on the apps store, Oracle and other providers have to drop them too. Btw, the app won't function even if parts of the infra is down. Btw, business is risk averse, they don't want to give any excuses for government to fine them. Bytedance should definitely shutdown everything and blocked all US users unless they have explicit, written and legally bidding instructions from the Justice Department. Only an executive order is enough. They asked Biden to give that, but Biden just smirked

fmbb 520 days ago

Is anyone but politicians to blame?

sillysaurusx 521 days ago

I’m not sure this is correct. I see where you’re coming from, but there was a clear date that the law was going to be enacted by, and tiktok simply followed that date. Pretty much everybody expected tiktok to be required to shut down. The law is clear that there are penalties for tiktok continuing to operate past that date, so it’s not really surprising.

They were telling users who to blame and who to thank because in this specific case, the blame and the thank are pretty clear. The Biden administration approved the ban, and the Trump administration reversed it. Blaming one and thanking the other is also hardly surprising.

vlovich123 520 days ago

Help me understand then if they’re following the letter of the law what changed with the law between the shutoff and now?

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-administrat...

wsatb 520 days ago

The timeline doesn't add up.

Jan 17: Biden administration says it will leave TikTok ban enforcement for Trump [1]

Early Jan 18: Trump says he will 'most likely' give TikTok a 90-day extension to avoid a ban [2]

Late Jan 18: TikTok makes app unavailable for U.S. users ahead of ban [3]

Midday Jan 19: TikTok begins restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments [4]

They already knew what was going to happen. They also changed the message shortly after disabling it from "We're working to restore service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned." to "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Stay tuned!" [5]

[2] https://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-likely-give-...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-makes-app-unav...

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-says-restoring...

[5] https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/tiktok-sends-notice-to-users...

TeaBrain 520 days ago

There's no evidence that they were obligated to shut off the app immediately at the time the law was enacted.

nickelpro 520 days ago

That's not true, distributors of the app are fined. Meaning, very specifically, app stores.

From (2)(a)(1):

> (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

> (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

Possession of and providing non-distribution ( / maintenance / update) services to a "Foreign Adversary Controlled Application" are not in any way a part of the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act". Operative services are specifically and intentionally excluded from the list, to ease the burden of enforcement.

Are you saying serving content to the application would not count as maintenance?

nickelpro 520 days ago

Legally, no, it doesn't

lupire 520 days ago

Are you a DOJ lawyer or Federal judge?

If not, what is your basis for your conclusion?

thelock85 520 days ago

I don’t use TikTok but the “down” page mentioned you can still login to download data. What’s the cost and scope of providing that feature without US cloud providers?

ceejayoz 521 days ago

They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.

extheat 521 days ago

They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.

> formal understanding

I think you mean "campaign promise."

No legally significant action has been taken between now and yesterday.

Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or are you simply assuming there have been no such private discussions?

comp_throw7 520 days ago

Trump isn't president yet, so any such conversations are not legally significant actions the way the person you're responding to meant.

kllrnohj 520 days ago

I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care.

It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.

An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.

kllrnohj 520 days ago

Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case

anon7000 520 days ago

The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension. (In this specific case)

kllrnohj 520 days ago

Trump isn't president and the ban went into effect before he was. There's no legal extension possible anymore under this specific case.

Retric 521 days ago

It’s federal law, and the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

The courts on the other hand can permanently block laws.

insane_dreamer 520 days ago

> the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

no, the president can pardon individuals convicted of a criminal law, which is not at all what you describe here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

Retric 520 days ago

Most famously Richard Nixon received a pardon by Ford immediately after his resignation but before any prosecution. Also, it’s any federal law, the exception is impeachment and nothing else.

So, pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution. They may not pardon someone for something that hasn’t happened, but as long as there in office when the crime is committed that’s more a technical issue.

After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[7][8]

chrisco255 520 days ago

> pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution

Is this really the case? Has this specific situation ever been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Burdick v. U.S. doesn't address "pre-pardons" or blanket pardons. Nixon was never prosecuted or tried.

vharuck 520 days ago

Presidents can pardon classes of people. Carter pardoned all people guilty of evading the draft during the Vietnam War. So Trump could pardon everyone involved in certain companies or involved in a specific act.

mr_00ff00 521 days ago

This feels like a stretch, I don’t think it’s a pardon they are after. Pardons don’t really work like that.

TikTok I think was going for more of a shock factor. Maybe even without talking to Trump they have credited him as restoring it, might seem weird for him to “go back on it”.

Or maybe it’s to put him in good light.

Sparyjerry 520 days ago

Trump issued a statement saying that he would issue an executive order after he became president that retroactively would dismiss any fines which satisfied both TikTok and the app hosting providers (Apple, Google).

cyanydeez 521 days ago

Also, the technical bit serms entirely on app distributors.

This is the internet.

psyklic 521 days ago

The President can offer pardons for criminal matters. However, he is required to uphold laws passed by Congress, particularly bipartisan ones affirmed by the Supreme Court.

For example, why would the President have a veto power if he can simply post-facto ignore laws they pass?

sumeno 521 days ago

He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that) and good fucking luck ever getting the required votes to remove him from office. He can do whatever he wants with impunity.

> He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that)

No, SCOTUS ruled that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution.

---

On many, many occasions, the courts have ruled executive actions invalid.

On no occasion, have courts assigned criminal liability to a President.

SCOTUS explicitly affirmed that as the rule.

rayiner 520 days ago

There’s a bit of a “live by the sword, die by the sword” situation going on here.

Presidents can’t just ignore a law categorically (although they regularly do, e.g. DACA, DOMA, etc.) On the other hand, presidents can certainly decide not to prosecute a particular entity under a particular law. That’s the heart of the executive power versus the legislative power.

Here, Congress wrote an extremely specific law that applies basically to one company. Which isn’t impermissible. But it’s also not clear to me that Congress can insist on immediate enforcement of that law without crossing effectively usurping the executive power and directing the President to prosecute a specific company at a specific time.

lupire 520 days ago

Technically, the President + Executive can do whatever they want, including prosecute parts the Executive!), until the President is either impeached or replaced by election or incapacitation.

singron 520 days ago

That's actually one of the reasons the president has a veto. If the president doesn't want the law to pass, then there isn't much point in passing it unless Congress makes a show of force with the 2/3rds majority, which is also the majority needed to remove him from office.

Similarly, one of the reasons the president has a pardon power is because he doesn't have to enforce those federal offenses. E.g. imagine that a president without pardon power instead offers "plea deals"/settlements for a $1 fine or concocts vacuously lenient house arrest enforcement.

The original constitution basically accepts that there is very little you can make a president do, and it instead formalizes what would otherwise be a gray area (it does have plenty about what he can't do). Some of this has changed over time especially as the judicial branch has granted itself more power.

The entire system is built on checks and balances. For instance even a simple district attorney can choose to effectively nullify laws within his jurisdiction by not prosecuting violations - something that has regularly happened in contemporary times. Even the final check - the lone juror - can also nullify laws by similarly choosing to acquit alleged violations regardless of the evidence.

You could obviously create a far more functional system but it would probably be far less stable. The reason you have all these checks and balances, from top to bottom, is that the Founding Fathers were obsessed about the risks imposed by both a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the minority. And non-enforcement of something effectively comes down just a continuation of the status quo, making it difficult for any group to [openly at least] impose their will on others.

derektank 521 days ago

You're not wrong but the only real recourse for an executive that fails to uphold the laws created by Congress is an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

missingcolours 520 days ago

Theoretically that's true but in practice there is ample precedent for Presidents refusing to enforce specific laws. In one instance (DACA) the Supreme Court ordered a President to continue a previous President's official policy of not enforcing certain laws against certain people!

Retric 520 days ago

Don’t confuse the oath of office for a binding agreement. The president is supposed to uphold the law, but they are only held accountable by impeachment.

They even have broad immunity while conducting official acts up to and including breaking the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)

“Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.”

rayiner 521 days ago

It obviously irrelevant whether the law was bipartisan or not, and the Supreme Court never "affirmed" the law--it denied a preliminary injunction.

As to upholding laws passed by Congress--just two days ago, Biden did his last round of student debt forgiveness, bringing the total up to $188 billion.

I’m not trying to “both sides” this. I’m just saying that the standard you’ve articulated for how promptly the president needs to act on a law like this isn't the standard we apply in practice. The government tries to reach deals like this in lieu of enforcement actions all the time.

Brystephor 521 days ago

Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban?

I understand that there was this law. It's a political statement because of the political message being sent out to the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a political statement.

aaronharnly 521 days ago

The law did not require them to suspend the service.

space_fountain 521 days ago

The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally

margalabargala 521 days ago

The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.

No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend service.

It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.

ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date and stop working (for people who already had it installed on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to work just fine.

modo_mario 520 days ago

>and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.

And they were forced to use those hosting providers (oracle) by the US. It's not like investing loads to bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve them well either. They'd still lose the US business relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning things around like they might've. Why bother?

margalabargala 520 days ago

What do you mean, "no"? You agreed with me.

The option you describe is another among the several options available.

Unless you're saying that the service shutdown would not have brought Bytedance into legal compliance, which would be a novel assertion.

Osiris 520 days ago

But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.

acomms 520 days ago

Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only theatre.

LastTrain 520 days ago

But bringing the service back again today is not following the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if you've now changed your mind.

immibis 520 days ago

Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.

modriano 520 days ago

A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was the last day of his administration, so enforcement by Biden wasn't even possible)

This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.

immibis 520 days ago

Police behave how government leaders want them to. Government leaders changing their statements changes the actual behaviour of police.

hbn 520 days ago

It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a great demonstration that people want their Tiktok.

* Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning it

* Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does

Seems like a smart move to me.

isk517 520 days ago

I like how it is just a given that he is just going to ignore term limits.

hbn 519 days ago

I'm Canadian, I forget about term limits

Plus has there ever been a US president that came back after a term away? Usually when a "new" president comes in you figure they'll be running again next time.

isk517 517 days ago

Grover Cleveland also had two non-consecutive terms, and the twenty second amendment is pretty clear in it's language that you can only be elected to the office of President twice.

space_fountain 521 days ago

They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed

glenstein 521 days ago

That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.

If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.

HWR_14 520 days ago

In 2012 a coordinated action by 100,000 sites (including major platforms like Reddit, Wikipedia and Google) all went dark for 24 hours to protest SOPA, which was successful in killing the bill. Some only changed the color scheme and added a message but others shut down.

tekknik 520 days ago

> which was successful in killing the bill

the protests had no bearing on the outcome of the bill. most of us didn’t even know they were taking place.

evolve2k 520 days ago

Sorry what?! I was in Australia and even from here it was obvious it was happening. Maybe go back refresh your mind on old HN posts. Sorry not meaning to be rude but the digital protests of the day were very significant. Lots of media coverage and site blackouts and banners and average punters waking up to the interruption. Stacks was going on. You can even watch Internets Own Boy doco where it’s covered.

tekknik 520 days ago

having lived through that period and relying on the internet to do my day job i didn’t notice.

also if you look at the history of the bill, there is no mention of public opinion at all. They shelved the bill due to lack of agreement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2012-01-18

lolinder 520 days ago

Well, speak for yourself, not "most of us". On 01/18/2012 the HN front page was basically nothing but SOPA/PIPA content:

As for your claim they had no effect, that's not what the sources from the time say—on the day of the protests 13 senators announced their opposition, including 5 former co-sponsors:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/pipa-support-col...

When you lose five co-sponsors in one day and that day happens to coincide with the internet shutting down, I don't find it very credible to try to claim that there was internal dissent all along.

cableshaft 520 days ago

I very much noticed. It was all over pretty much every major site. I'm surprised to hear of anyone online that day that didn't notice.

chucknthem 520 days ago

Uber has used this tactic many times in their early days. It mostly worked because citizens got used to cheap rides and got mad at their government for taking it away.

1a527dd5 521 days ago

> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

OnlyFans did something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans#Restrictions_on_porno...

SilasX 520 days ago

That wasn’t a political statement. Per your link, it was a belief that that could not continue the credit card payments while staying in compliance with the law.

blahedo 521 days ago

> flip-flop so quickly

The timing and phrasing make it clear that this was planned and negotiated in advance, and the shutdown was just for show in order to be able to post a memo about how "President Trump" saved it. If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours between midnight and noon on Sunday morning.

The point of the stunt was to persuade large numbers of younger folks that the Ds are the bad guys and Trump in particular is the hero. And it'll work as designed.

mr_toad 520 days ago

> If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours

A spur of the moment decision would be more like Trump than a lengthy negotiation.

iknowSFR 521 days ago

What’s the evidence of this? It seems highly plausible but do we have any proof besides speculation?

willis936 521 days ago

My partner uses TikTok and was greeted with a message today saying that DJT saved the app. That isn't possible because he isn't president yet. It's all very embarrassing.

agumonkey 521 days ago

I don't think I will be able to handle 5 more years of this without moving in a very remote place and limited information streams.

throwaway173738 520 days ago

I’m going to go found a place I’ll call Galt’s Gulch for maximum irony.

arp242 520 days ago

I'd pay good money for a newspaper that would go out of its way to avoid mentioning Trump, Musk, and all these other highly exasperating people, unless it's completely unavoidable (e.g. "Trump declares war on California").

lubujackson 521 days ago

Also the CEO of TikTok is going to sit directly behind Trump at the inauguration. It's not even subtle and half the point is that it isn't subtle - bend the knee to Trump and you'll be taken care of, is the message. We operate just like Russia at this point.

Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.

https://imgur.com/a/yCOpifC

ceejayoz 521 days ago

I got an internal ad on Facebook telling me to connect my TikTok account the other day.

threecheese 521 days ago

We’ve also started seeing TT ads on Reels, and a brand new blue-checked Facebook account appeared on TT yesterday and rapidly gained 100Ks of followers.

throwawayq3423 520 days ago

I'm old enough to remember when selling out the American people to the CCP would have been a career ending scandal.

pjc50 520 days ago

Selling them out to the Iranians? Pardoned and the person involved got a job on Fox News (Oliver North).

Selling them out to the Russians? Well, it worked fine last time, a bunch of minor figures went to jail, but the boss remained untouched.

So why not sell out to the Chinese? Remember, it's only illegal when a Democrat does it.

1659447091 520 days ago

> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.

Well, that makes this interesting. The bill also allowed a 90-day extension if they found a buyer and were in the process of finalizing it.

This may put this cringe ByteDance stunt and Meta/Zuck's pandering to Trump into more perspective. The Hero coming to save the day with a magical 90-day extension. As long as everyone plays their scripted part. On the other hand, it's probably just a funny timed coincidence that will pass in 3 months

[added] The president would have to approve any sale of apps caught in this law

pizza 521 days ago

Wait, if this is truly what this outcome was about, this seems.. huge? Can you share more information about that?

mquander 521 days ago

It's possible for people who aren't currently the president to do things.

ceejayoz 521 days ago

“Be President while the other guy still is” is not one of them.

wat10000 521 days ago

There isn’t enough time for the current President to enforce this. A convincing pledge from the incoming guy that he’ll allow them to continue operating is all it would take. How you get a convincing pledge out of this guy, I have no idea, but apparently they believe it.

latency-guy2 521 days ago

TikTok operated in a way that did not need to happen. Biden's administration was explicit in that the enforcement of the ban were to be performed by the Trump administration. Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday. TikTok are now operating based on this information.

Who is currently in charge of the oval office is an irrelevant quality.

Note that the ban was not really on TikTok, but the ownership. TikTok could be owned by many other parties in the world. It just can't be ByteDance or parent/subsidiary which has ties to China.

ruraljuror 521 days ago

But that is essentially what is happening. There is long-standing convention for the president elect to not step on the sitting president's toes prior to inauguration, but Trump has been bucking that convention this time around. This is just an impossible to ignore example.

tw04 521 days ago

It’s actually illegal for people who aren’t currently the president to negotiate as if they were.

afiori 521 days ago

Declaring your intent to create an executive order the next day is not a negotiation

GeneralMayhem 521 days ago

Okay, fine, let's play this game.

What did Trump do to get TikTok back online?

Maxatar 521 days ago

He agreed to extend to TikTok an executive order that grants it a 90 day extension, as the law explicitly allows the President to do.

throwawayq3423 520 days ago

I don't know but TikTok itself said it was because of him.

moralestapia 521 days ago

No idea and we might never know, but, do you think ByteDance would just lie about it?

Karrot_Kream 521 days ago

Trump agreed to use a provision in the bill to offer a one-time 90 day extension on enforcement: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

coliveira 521 days ago

It is very clear that it is Trump doing the negotiations around TikTok. The current administration is at this point powerless.

If you mean because they used the term "President Trump", that honorific is for life. See, for instance, the recent passing of President Carter for a million examples. If you mean because he couldn't have executed legal actions yet - he could have offered private and legally binding statements to all the major players - Oracle, Apple, and Google.

magicalist 520 days ago

> he could have offered private and legally binding statements

No, he couldn't? It's not even clear he'll be able to do anything with an executive order when he is sworn in, but President elects certainly can't.

I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for the heads of the various companies involved to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.

anon7000 520 days ago

Presidents are allowed to offer legally binding political favors in private?

Calling it a political favor is quite silly. He stated he was likely overturn it for months now, but the public indirect phrasing was probably not sufficient for the involved actors to feel was sufficient to act on, a private statement of definitive intent would be.

spacecadet 520 days ago

Oh maybe the very clear messaging in the app and by the inbound administration, who is heavily supported by tech elites. The same people who have been very open about their feelings towards opposition and who and what they support. No one will come out and claim this was the case, but its not like they are trying to hide it either.

mihaaly 520 days ago

Do you need to eat shit to know it is shit?

Isn't it enough to see, smell, you have to touch and eat it repeatedly so you can conclude: yes, this is shit. You are now expert in shit eating and the professional opinion is that this is really shit, no mistake is made here!?

kec 521 days ago

If that’s the case this was totally bungled, the app was down for less than 12 hours, overnight during a weekend. If they wanted maximum effect Trump wouldn’t have tweeted until 5pm eastern to give people a chance to come to terms with the shutdown actually happening.

jvm___ 521 days ago

They want to be able to livestream the inauguration tomorrow on Tiktok.

kec 521 days ago

Sure, but TikTok coming back online around this time would have also allowed for that & been more effective propaganda for Trump as savior of the app.

wumeow 521 days ago

It gave people all of Sunday to react to the shutdown on TikTok ahead of Monday where the focus will be the inauguration.

ajdude 520 days ago

They shut down long enough to get attention but not long enough for people to find another platform

B-Con 520 days ago

It had to have been a PR move.

The Tik Tok in-app notes for "shutting down" and "we're back" both referenced Trump by name. I doubt they would do that without his explicit consent.

Trump beamed his name and heroics directly into the eyeballs of 50m people before he even took office. That wouldn't have happened without the brief blip going dark.

Odds are good he said he'd pardon them (which is a whole different story) but ensured they'd go dark for a few hours, either by withholding his guarantee or by directly coordinating it with them.

This is Trump. It's always about him. If we haven't learned that we haven't learned anything.

nprateem 520 days ago

Ha ha are you serious? Trump is a fragile-egoed narcissist.

He's not even in power and already everyone's sucking up to him.

like your conspiracy theory, lots of entertainments in it.

nostromo 520 days ago

The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.

The ban was the stick and selling it for a lot of money was the carrot. ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.

myko 520 days ago

> The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.

Seems like the goal pivoted recently - the goal is to keep TikTok Chinese and have them supporting the corrupt regime taking over the US, similar to other foreign adversaries have in the past

> ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.

shortly after Trump tried to force bytedance to sell its shares during his first term, the Chinese government passed laws to include the recommendation systems used in social media into the export control list. bytedance thus won't be able to sell tiktok without approval from the chinese government.

pjc50 520 days ago

Does anyone have a citation for this? Probably higher quality if it's in Chinese even if I have to machine translate it. Because that would be a clear pointer of suspicion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/technology/china-tiktok-e...

2020 report by nyt, paywalled of coursed

the official export control list in Chinese

https://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/202312/W020231221620858841394.p...

it is on the 29th page, with export control number 086501X, item 18.

pjc50 520 days ago

OK, that's pretty convincing. And it's interesting how much other stuff is in there like OCR for Hanzi!

JKCalhoun 520 days ago

It's like real life is playing like a shitty TV series. Constant cliff hangers, plot twists that never resolve....

bamboozled 520 days ago

Agree, and the velocity is amazing, it's really hard to keep up with the shenanigans. In my opinion, it will have a negative impact on the economy, education, birth rates etc.

Government should stay out of the way, and I don't want to hear about it every ten seconds, on the other hand, I don't want to have to read the news every five minutes to audit what they're doing.

elfbargpt 521 days ago

I think it's obvious that US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum. They were never prepared for an actual ban and the resulting fallout. Now that it's obvious they won't divest (which should have been obvious the entire time), they flipped

JumpCrisscross 520 days ago

> US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum

I worked on the bill. Everyone assumed it would hit the ban, get an extension, and then either remain banned or get sold to Elon, Ellison or a Brexiteer.

freeopinion 520 days ago

Can you point to a lawmaker who has flipped?

[1] https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1880007290830688609

elfbargpt 520 days ago

Here's what Chuck Schumer said:

"It's clear that more time is needed to find an American buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans of so many influencers who have built up a good network of followers" [1]

The deal was divest or ban, not look for "more time to find a buyer". My point is they were never prepared for an actual ban.

JumpCrisscross 520 days ago

> they were never prepared for an actual ban

This is have your cake and eat it too politics. I can pointedly say that Schumer’s office isn’t surprised Bytedance ran out its 180 days.

blitzar 520 days ago

Won't somebody think of the influencers.

anon7000 520 days ago

I think the bigger point is there are a lot of young people making really decent money on TikTok. (I know a few of them.) The result is a lot of push back from a lot of people who are effectively loosing their jobs. This is probably more clear to politicians now than it was a year ago, since the actual “threat” of the situation set in for more people.

philippejara 520 days ago

As popular as the platform is with the younger demographic and the voting preferences of said younger demographic it's political malpractice for democrats to not try to at least salvage some face in this whole ordeal, whether you think the blame is misplaced or not.

__MatrixMan__ 520 days ago

Here we have a group of people that have given up on their duties re: checks and balances because following orders is easier. What a surprise that they're spineless in other ways too.

Gormo 521 days ago

> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?

There's too much effort and uncertainty involved in actually creating a problem and then actually fixing it.

It's much easier and more reliable to create the perception of a problem by promulgating lots of FUD, then engage in performative theatrics to nullify the FUD and proclaim the problem fixed.

Brystephor 521 days ago

What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?

If you create an issue, and solve an issue, indifferent of the issue being real, you'll be credited with solving the issue. It's ridiculous at this scale

Gormo 521 days ago

> What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?

Well, it would be the same as the distinction between real and imaginary in any other context.

dcow 520 days ago

Perception is reality

Gormo 520 days ago

No, it very much isn't. Reality is reality, and people's perceptions of it are often quite incorrect.

dcow 520 days ago

The phrase is not a defense of some hyper relative worldview. It’s commentary that the perception of the many facts, which of those are highlighted, which are ignored, which biases shine through and which narrative wins, etc., at the end of the day, is the reality you must deal with. Reality is downstream of facts.

dymk 520 days ago

You can be passed out in the back seat but a car crash is still going to kill you

dcow 520 days ago

That’s not what the saying means, obviously -_-

JoshTko 520 days ago

Not exactly the same but ChatGPT's firing and rehiring of Sam Altman seems to be in the same vein

_heimdall 521 days ago

Union strikes may fit that bill.

hackyhacky 521 days ago

> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.

Trump was against Tiktok before he was for it.

He was also against crypto currencies before he released his own.

throwawayq3423 520 days ago

> Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly

Trump has never had any issue he has not been on both sides of. He has no ideology, he does what benefits him in the moment at any given moment.

fundad 520 days ago

According to the people I work with, all they care about is kids in cages. They value “tough talk” on immigration above anything else. Being influenced by Russia or China don’t even register.

throwawayq3423 519 days ago

> all they care about is kids in cages

To clear, they want kids in cages. Did I read that right?

> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

A number of internet services (e.g. Wikipedia) shut down temporarily on Jan 18, 2012 as a political statement against SOPA.

hedora 520 days ago

Heh; I thought you were talking about trump the first few times I read this.

He appointed a bunch of corrupt Supreme Court judges, and they upheld an obviously unconstitutional law (bill of attainment). Now, on his first day in office, he gets to be a hero by unilaterally deciding not to enforce the law.

So, moving forward, (1) we should expect increasingly unjust and draconian laws, and (2) as long as you do what Trump asks, you can break whatever federal laws you want.

(Zukerberg, Bezos and Trump have already gotten in line for this.)

> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly

I wish people would understand that Trump has no ideology. Over a span of decades, Trump has been critical of liberals and conservatives, often at the same time. He's praised conservatives and liberals, often at the same time. His political positions are aligned with whatever benefits him the most.

He doesn't care about making life better for the middle class. He doesn't care if immigration restrictions are relaxed or tightened. He doesn't care about whether or not transgender people have access to health care or can or can't serve in the military. He only cares what positions on those issues will benefit him and his friends at any given time. And if tomorrow holding the opposite position will benefit him more, he'll switch, just like that, and somehow convince his base that's what they believe too.

Trump is the one who was championing the idea of a TikTok divestiture or ban, back when he was president the first time. He's only changed his mind on that because opposing the ban is better for him now.

sandworm101 521 days ago

He who can destroy a thing controls that thing. Expect the new administration to have great influence on tiktok policy and content.

Grimblewald 521 days ago

Already do and users are noticing. Ads have been introduce in a really obnixious facebook/instagram style and contebt moderation is more facebook/instagrem esq as well. It would surprise no one on the platform if meta has already aquired it, and it just needs to be announced.

spandrew 520 days ago

100% it's what happened. And the craziest part is that it worked because Biden went along with it. It's easy enough to argue Trump played hardball to negotiate for any divestiture that may occur; because that was his goal all along. The narrative/pundits can spin this easily in his favour.

Either because they gave in to the ploy, or because they were unable to close a TikTok deal, the Democrats look incompetent here. And Trump gains favour in the younger demo (that he's already pretty strong in) AND with SMB because he gave TikTok more time.

dowager_dan99 520 days ago

oh - and his true audience all along: an American oligarch is about to get at least half of TikTok for a steal.

Anyone doing graft, corruption or just questionable wealth accumulation in the millions or single billions is going to look like small ball for at least the next four years.

spandrew 520 days ago

Yeah it's just decent strategy on their part (I hate to say). Even if they don't profit directly off of the TikTok deal they look like absolute bosses for being able to "give" Americans what they wanted all along.

flipbrad 520 days ago

I dont think we know the actual range of motives for shutdown. Oracle may have forced it, for instance.

hot_gril 520 days ago

Epic Games sorta did this to Fortnite, but the reversal wasn't quick

derektank 521 days ago

The SOPA and PIPA protests were basically that

palata 520 days ago

> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?

In Trump's world, I think you should cause a problem, blame somebody else, and then fix it.

stuckkeys 520 days ago

moonshine stopped working also. I guess it was under the same parent org. They all back to working now.

yieldcrv 521 days ago

Is it a big political statement to shut down a couple hours before the deadline of shutting down?

The app stores removed the app in accordance with that timeline too.

Brystephor 521 days ago

No. It's a big political statement to include political messaging and plead to political figures when you shut down. Then to praise those political figures afterwards is additional political messaging.

Grimblewald 521 days ago

No, many users are sharing the theory that the downtime was to allow meta or google to take over the backend. Content delivery is different on the app now. For example, ads being served during videos not between videos.

TypingOutBugs 521 days ago

There was no deadline, the app stores didn’t need to remove it.

The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump administration to review, they had no reason to shut it down. It’s purely to force Trumps hand a bit.

arandomusername 521 days ago

> As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw- ful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v...

Please do some research next time before spreading lies.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520...

TeaBrain 520 days ago

That is simply a topical remark within the judgement denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would have been required to be taken immediately offline, as the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet moved on the matter.

arandomusername 520 days ago

It clearly states it will be unlawful for companies (e.g oracle for cloud, google for app distro) to provide services to Tiktok

TypingOutBugs 520 days ago

From the White House Press Secretary:

“It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them.”

Please do some research next time before accusing people of spreading lies.

yieldcrv 521 days ago

Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not create liability, unless given an explicit assurance.

I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They still had liability.

Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing court cases all the way till the last minute even though they’ll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable to take a risk averse approach for a company.

gpm 521 days ago

The Biden administration said it wasn't going to initiate enforcement proceedings in the last 24 hours of their administration.

It did not, nor did it have the authority to, waive the apps stores requirement under the law to do that. To remove the potential for future enforcement actions (up to 5 years in the future) punishing them for failing to comply with the law. Neither will Trump even once he is president unless and until amongst other things ByteDance signs legally binding documents that they will divest from TikTok within 90 days.

* https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346831867112

throw0101c 520 days ago

> Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.

"Rep. Mike Waltz calls out the Biden campaign's TikTok account: 'They should be ashamed'":

Waltz chosen as Trump's national security advisor:

* https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5187098/trump-national-...

And currently "Trump security adviser doesn't rule out continued Chinese ownership of TikTok":

* https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-security-adviser-do...

So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Aloisius 521 days ago

Trump going soft on China was predictable.

MangoCoffee 521 days ago

Trump's biggest backers, Elon Musk, Jeff Yass...etc. all have ties with China.

swat535 521 days ago

People need to understand that politicians (dare I say everywhere?..) are just business man with dressing. They simply put up a show for people to win the votes and once they get elected, do whatever they can to make an extra buck. Trump, a convicted felon is certainly no different..

blackeyeblitzar 521 days ago

Was it? Apart from Elon’s dependence on China market for Tesla sales, I didn’t think so. Trump has been talking a lot about going hard against adversaries. The TikTok ban is something he supported. And it’s more popular on the right than left.

FrustratedMonky 520 days ago

What am I missing.

Trump as a private citizen, can't issue a statement and automatically over-turn a law.

If someone wants to enforce the law, they still can. It's still on the books, and Supreme Court upheld it.