Rand Paul blocks the fast-tracking of TikTok ban(wionews.com)
wionews.com
Rand Paul blocks the fast-tracking of TikTok ban
https://www.wionews.com/world/republican-rand-paul-blocks-tiktok-ban-asks-if-us-is-going-to-be-just-like-china-and-block-free-speech-577130
78 comments
Another piece of information: One of Paul Rand's top donors is billionaire Jeff Yass, the largest U.S. investor in TikTok.
Doesn't mean that's the cause obviously, but still worth keeping in mind.
Doesn't mean that's the cause obviously, but still worth keeping in mind.
Yeah, not just him, and not just TikTok / ByteDance:
> It’s also spent over $13 million lobbying the federal government since 2019, per OpenSecrets, including a record $5.4 million last year. ByteDance’s spending on lobbying was reportedly the fourth-largest among internet companies, behind only Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet.
> Records show that the same politicians who’ve publicly attacked the app and voted to restrict its use have also accepted donations from top executives with TikTok and its parent company ByteDance.
> Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that in the last election cycle, ByteDance and TikTok employees handed out $130,000 in campaign donations to a range of politicians. A third of these donations came from one person: David J. Urban, who was the executive vice president of ByteDance at the time. (Urban has since left the company.) His profile on his current employer’s website says that he helped ByteDance “navigate public policy and communications challenges.”
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/tiktok-bytedance-donations-ke...
> It’s also spent over $13 million lobbying the federal government since 2019, per OpenSecrets, including a record $5.4 million last year. ByteDance’s spending on lobbying was reportedly the fourth-largest among internet companies, behind only Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet.
> Records show that the same politicians who’ve publicly attacked the app and voted to restrict its use have also accepted donations from top executives with TikTok and its parent company ByteDance.
> Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that in the last election cycle, ByteDance and TikTok employees handed out $130,000 in campaign donations to a range of politicians. A third of these donations came from one person: David J. Urban, who was the executive vice president of ByteDance at the time. (Urban has since left the company.) His profile on his current employer’s website says that he helped ByteDance “navigate public policy and communications challenges.”
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/tiktok-bytedance-donations-ke...
Absolutely. Do keep in mind the massive donations Facebook & co as well though.
Buying regulators to stifle your new competitor because you can't hack it is a classic game.
Buying regulators to stifle your new competitor because you can't hack it is a classic game.
In 3 yrs TikTok won't even be relevant. The next hypergrowth app will be the one where the content is instantly generated personally for you, no interaction with other humans needed. You can immerse yourself in an addictive world of algo-generated content, and you don't event need to interact with others.
Bad take imo.
1. Large social networks don’t come and go in a few years: facebook’s still a major force in most people’s live, instagram’s still huge, the dead social networks are all from the early days (myspace, friendster, livejournal, msn/aim) and as far as i recall none of them had only a six year run.
2. The thing that makes tiktok /facebook/instagram/etc interesting is interacting with other humans. No ai content is going to approach that for at least another ten years, and potentially never.
1. Large social networks don’t come and go in a few years: facebook’s still a major force in most people’s live, instagram’s still huge, the dead social networks are all from the early days (myspace, friendster, livejournal, msn/aim) and as far as i recall none of them had only a six year run.
2. The thing that makes tiktok /facebook/instagram/etc interesting is interacting with other humans. No ai content is going to approach that for at least another ten years, and potentially never.
No shot. It's the fastest growing social network at the moment. It's only going to get more popular with all of the bad press it's been getting recently.
This is the Great Filter you never hear about.
While I don’t really think a TikTok ban would accomplish much, I’m not terribly concerned of the implications.
Huawei/ZTE has been banned from sale and thus import and I effectively view this as equivalent and likely permissible under law in any case - so it’s probably the case they can just ban it from App stores though not actually block it on the internet - which I would frankly find acceptable (admittedly, it would likely be a death knell)
I don’t want to live in a populist/nationalist world, but a little bit of reciprocity, through protectionism, in small doses, isn’t a terrible thing.
Huawei/ZTE has been banned from sale and thus import and I effectively view this as equivalent and likely permissible under law in any case - so it’s probably the case they can just ban it from App stores though not actually block it on the internet - which I would frankly find acceptable (admittedly, it would likely be a death knell)
I don’t want to live in a populist/nationalist world, but a little bit of reciprocity, through protectionism, in small doses, isn’t a terrible thing.
I think that's a reasonable perspective. Previously I had pointed that the US banning all the social media apps from China because China bans all the American social media apps is the recommended strategy in game theory, specifically in iterated prisoner's dilemma. This is called "Tit for Tat" strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
But China believes in a controlled economy whereas the West believes in a free market. If you apply tit for tat we are basically saying that a free market economy cannot win in a game with controlled economies, and therefore a free market is impractical and idealist in the same sense that communism is…
The US has a mixed system. Tariffs exist raising the price of everything in the US. Farming, tech get boatloads of money. Illusion of a free market.
The modems are covered by import/export controls, which the government has much tighter control over than software, which is effectively speech (at least today). Past attempts to apply those controls to algorithms, cryptography being exhibit A, haven't worked.
It is an interesting question if there's a good way to produce a legal vehicle to apply import/export restrictions to software, but this definitely isn't it.
It is an interesting question if there's a good way to produce a legal vehicle to apply import/export restrictions to software, but this definitely isn't it.
Didn’t Huawei/ZTE violate some sanctions? Tiktok ban amounts to mostly “we don’t like it” so it is fundamentally different. It also sets a precedent that the US government can arbitrarily ban to shape public opinion in much the same way China currently does.
if tiktok were banned from the store, they could just publish an api and let 3rd party developers create client apps. an app store ban might even have the opposite of the intended effect. which would be pretty much on par as far as sanctions go.
Given the user base for TikTok in the US, I don't think this is a likely issue, because this is not a group of people clamoring tenaciously to get something; rather, it is a group of people following the path of least resistance. If TikTok is suddenly gone from the app store, you're not going to see swarms of bored teenagers and soccer moms jailbreaking their iPhones to install some third party TikTok workaround; you're going to see them switch to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts.
TikTok's popularity, while in part fueled by the algorithm, is largely a matter of network effect. Sure, a small portion of the users may "stick it to the man" and go through the trouble of working around the ban, but it won't be anything close to a majority of the 150+ million users they currently have in the US.
This is all also somewhat beside the point -- the bill in question here isn't bad because it bans TikTok; it's bad because it hands almost unfettered Internet censorship power to the executive branch and provides stiff penalties for workarounds such as VPN use to circumvent blocks. Which is why it's been called by some the USA PATRIOT Act 2.0.
TikTok's popularity, while in part fueled by the algorithm, is largely a matter of network effect. Sure, a small portion of the users may "stick it to the man" and go through the trouble of working around the ban, but it won't be anything close to a majority of the 150+ million users they currently have in the US.
This is all also somewhat beside the point -- the bill in question here isn't bad because it bans TikTok; it's bad because it hands almost unfettered Internet censorship power to the executive branch and provides stiff penalties for workarounds such as VPN use to circumvent blocks. Which is why it's been called by some the USA PATRIOT Act 2.0.
So ban any app that uses the API
How? Apps will be created by US developers. Banning them would be infringing on their first amendment right. In addition no more excuses of TikTok doing something funny on user phones without their knowledge if the access is through third party apps.
it sounds so easy, doesn't it? they've been trying to ban tiktok for 4 years now.
Specifically, the Department of Commerce must identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate transactions involving ICT products and services (1) in which any foreign adversary has any interest, and (2) that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.
We're rapidly approaching a time where a lot of US citizens who think they can play both sides have to decide if they are an American first or not.
We're rapidly approaching a time where a lot of US citizens who think they can play both sides have to decide if they are an American first or not.
Sounds like a perfect time to revive the House Un-American Activities Committee.
The House Speaker is named McCarthy and everything. We are good to go!
"House Un-American Activities Committee" is a LOT of words to read, say, or remember. It's easier just to lump it all under "woke" now, a single, shorter more approachable word for the intended audience.
This is just reheated cold war/GWOT rhetoric lol. Might as well just say "either you're with us or with the terrorists", or accuse him of being a communist (which, for Rand Paul I mean would certainly be a take). I mean sure the outline of the law is designed to evoke emotions (who would disagree with it except for traitors, right?!). But this is not far from saying that disagreeing with the PATRIOT act means you are unpatriotic. Just come on, lol.
I worry that we've replaced the American understanding of austerity, rationing, community, and hard work necessary to survive the next decade with a fig leaf of cries of national security.
If you're still in the later camp, when times get tough you're more likely to be first to the black market. First to burn your ration card. I see all kinds of firsts in the future for such folks, none of them America.
Good riddance.
If you're still in the later camp, when times get tough you're more likely to be first to the black market. First to burn your ration card. I see all kinds of firsts in the future for such folks, none of them America.
Good riddance.
It would be a lot more effective to regulate the things that make TikTok dangerous, rather than banning TikTok itself. Facebook, instagram, twitter, and a number of other social media services are guilty of the same behavior and I'd really prefer none of them have the ability to affect us the way they do.
Ban algorithmic ordering of content. Make a strong privacy policy that makes it impossible to track and/or collect data on you without opting-in. Make the opt-in text and prompt default to no, with the language of the opt-in and the buttons standard. Require ads to be prominently labeled, and require users to be offboarded if they break advertising laws.
The real problem is that the aim of these bills isn't to protect us. It's to harm China, and to sneak in changes that gives the government more ability to access our private data, or to block encrypted communications.
Ban algorithmic ordering of content. Make a strong privacy policy that makes it impossible to track and/or collect data on you without opting-in. Make the opt-in text and prompt default to no, with the language of the opt-in and the buttons standard. Require ads to be prominently labeled, and require users to be offboarded if they break advertising laws.
The real problem is that the aim of these bills isn't to protect us. It's to harm China, and to sneak in changes that gives the government more ability to access our private data, or to block encrypted communications.
Why not seize and auction off TikTok instead of banning it? To be clear: I'm a big fan of the TikTok app, and don't think any action is warranted.
How? Its US subsidiary doesn't own all the pieces for its success. Not even TikTok itself does, as much development is done through its parent company.
Is that something the us gov had the authority to do? I’m skeptical it does
We need more libertarians in congress, they err on the side of civil liberties and work to stop the deluge of bad laws.
Liberties like abortion rights for example?
Or not that kind of "liberty" then. (Paul favors a federal ban on abortion - throwing doctors and mothers in jail for miscarriages and other medical emergencies that can't be adequately explained to the local abortion police). That's "libertarian" apparently
Or not that kind of "liberty" then. (Paul favors a federal ban on abortion - throwing doctors and mothers in jail for miscarriages and other medical emergencies that can't be adequately explained to the local abortion police). That's "libertarian" apparently
Abortion is a pretty contentious issue for both big and small l libertarians. Generally it is not a litmus test for a person's libertarian-ness like it is for democrats and republicans.
Although the libertarian party doesn't speak for all - here is a decent summary: https://www.lp.org/libertarians-on-abortion/
Although the libertarian party doesn't speak for all - here is a decent summary: https://www.lp.org/libertarians-on-abortion/
> Generally it is not a litmus test for a person's libertarian-ness like it is for democrats and republicans.
That litmus test will misclassify 18% of Democrat/lean Dem and 38% of Republican/lean Rep. As a litmus test for determining party affiliation, it's shit.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
That litmus test will misclassify 18% of Democrat/lean Dem and 38% of Republican/lean Rep. As a litmus test for determining party affiliation, it's shit.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
> Generally it is not a litmus test for a person's libertarian-ness
Well sure, if you define "libertarian" as "hypocritical bro who wants the government to not touch his own personal things but feel free to go nuts on women, minorities, bailing out huge banks I make use of with taxpayer money", the abortion issue is not much of a litmus test.
Otherwise calling abortion a "contentious" issue for dictionary-definition libertarianism, that's something libertarians would think to make themselves feel better about supporting the most intrusive government overreach imaginable.
Well sure, if you define "libertarian" as "hypocritical bro who wants the government to not touch his own personal things but feel free to go nuts on women, minorities, bailing out huge banks I make use of with taxpayer money", the abortion issue is not much of a litmus test.
Otherwise calling abortion a "contentious" issue for dictionary-definition libertarianism, that's something libertarians would think to make themselves feel better about supporting the most intrusive government overreach imaginable.
Realistically everyone has to "sell out" a little to get elected to office
The idea that Rand Paul is a libertarian is pretty absurd.
He's a decent facsimile.
That's not a gotcha for libertarians because libertarianism has a whole philosophy around the use of violence, which abortion would fall under. That is libertarians do not consider there to be a right to violence except in cases of self defence. Thus it is consistent to be libertarian and not consider abortion rights to be legitimate.
are you familiar with a procedure called a DNC ? Have you ever known anyone who had a miscarriage? Are you aware that the DNC procedure is now vaguely illegal in many states and that entire maternity wards and OB/GYN practices are literally leaving states like Texas to avoid accidental liabilities? That mothers undergoing medical emergencies are being forced to writhe in painful, life threatening scenarios for hours, as their baby dies through natural causes in any case, as doctors are now terrified to intervene?
Do you know any of this?
I think if you are completely ignorant of modern medicine, you should probably sit down before commenting on what "abortion" is and what the actual effect of anti-abortion laws is.
sources:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/20/rural-hospital-texas...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/...
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/07/1161486096/abortion-texas-law...
etc etc
Do you know any of this?
I think if you are completely ignorant of modern medicine, you should probably sit down before commenting on what "abortion" is and what the actual effect of anti-abortion laws is.
sources:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/20/rural-hospital-texas...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/...
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/07/1161486096/abortion-texas-law...
etc etc
This particular libertarian has accepted large donations from ByteDance. Though I think the decision he made was ultimately correct, it's very likely he wasn't doing it out of principle, but because he wants to keep getting bribes.
We should make buying politicians illegal, so that we can see their actual character.
We should make buying politicians illegal, so that we can see their actual character.
Isn't it more likely that he's just being consistent with his prior principles, and bytedance donated to him knowing that he'd be a reliable ally and thus wanting him to remain in Congress?
Almost certainly not. It's not very likely for him to be voted out, and companies don't "hope" their dollars go toward what they want.
Of course they do. All political donations involve "hope" because you can't directly control what a politician says or does with money. You can only fund allies and then hope or assume they remain allies. In the case of Rand Paul it's a pretty good bet he won't suddenly turn on them, because his principles are consistent with what they want, so it makes sense to make big donations.
I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
If this was a democrat, would you still give the benefit of the doubt?
I simply can't trust the word of a politician that's arguing in favor of the company that bribed them.
I simply can't trust the word of a politician that's arguing in favor of the company that bribed them.
It's not about dems or repubs it's just that 2 parties can't possibly represent all the diverse groups and agendas in this country and a libertarian option would go a long way to remedying that.
But like you said whether it's on principle or not the reason for his objection is beside the point.
But like you said whether it's on principle or not the reason for his objection is beside the point.
I think TikTok is right next to places like /pol/ on the level of corruption they can deliver with such simple interactions. But even then I do not think they should ban access, it just sets a horrible precedence for things to come, all over tech. Limiting and regulating sounds more like a solution.
Then again, and going back to the /pol/ example, more horrible conduct is being condoned on that front than on TikTok, or at least more blatant radical behavior, and yet here we are talking about a bill to ban a Chinese-made reels et al.
Then again, and going back to the /pol/ example, more horrible conduct is being condoned on that front than on TikTok, or at least more blatant radical behavior, and yet here we are talking about a bill to ban a Chinese-made reels et al.
Why don’t we just pass a privacy law with teeth not some weird vague all-powerful dictator shit.
In the thread earlier, a lot of people were curious about banning Tiktok, whether it was the reasons or implementation. As for the reason, here's a quick demonstration: search Instagram for France, and then search Tiktok. This stark difference holds true for a massive number of things, this is just a current example. Tiktok has become a far better news source than any other social media, especially since the recent changes with Twitter.
I heard about this exact example earlier today ... on TikTok.
so what, we can't ban any apps that allow you to send a message or are considered social in some way?
The government shouldn't be banning any apps period. Keep computing unregulated and free
Only communists value speech between peers, not brands.
/s
/s
More like our government fully understands how to weaponize social media to spread their bullshit, and how valuable it is for mass control and surveillance. We're more than ok with our social media platforms because of this usefulness, but TikTok is China's version and we can't have that type of mass surveillance and control and propaganda in anyone's hands but ours.
A few years ago this would have sounded like a conspiracy theory. Now it's the only logical conclusion.
A few years ago this would have sounded like a conspiracy theory. Now it's the only logical conclusion.
Our government (well, our congressmen and women) demonstrably has no clue what social media is capable of outside of their meta sponsored talking points.
“Do you track pupil dilation?!”
“Do you track pupil dilation?!”
Tbf, China doesn't allow US propaganda in their country either, i.e Facebook and co. They even banned or make it impossible for stuff like wikipedia and google to work over there.
It is not like this is a one sided problem.
It is not like this is a one sided problem.
Please hold while I go nail my thesis to a church door. Should that also be allowed? It's also a valid and historically relevant method to disperse speech. There are countless of possible methods that are restricted.
I don't know if TikTok should be banned or not; I haven't looked in to the matter in great detail. But limiting one particular method to disperse speech is not limiting free speech as a concept; this entire argument is silly and just poisons the entire discussion.
I don't know if TikTok should be banned or not; I haven't looked in to the matter in great detail. But limiting one particular method to disperse speech is not limiting free speech as a concept; this entire argument is silly and just poisons the entire discussion.
> But limiting one particular method to disperse speech is not limiting free speech as a concept; this entire argument is silly and just poisons the entire discussion.
Could you quote from the article where this argument is made?
I see these arguments:
1. Banning TikTok is similar to what China does. What China does is bad.
2. It will harm Republicans to ban a popular social media app
3. The act gives the executive too much discretion to ban modes of communication <- Main argument
Could you quote from the article where this argument is made?
I see these arguments:
1. Banning TikTok is similar to what China does. What China does is bad.
2. It will harm Republicans to ban a popular social media app
3. The act gives the executive too much discretion to ban modes of communication <- Main argument
It's literally in the title with and first highlighted paragraph. "We're going to be just like China and ban speech we're afraid of" is hard to interpret as any other way than "this is limiting free speech".
Your argument doesn't fit.
It is illegal to nail thesis to church doors, but also to trees, houses, hospitals, military installations, porches, fences, barns and anything else without the owners permission.
It is illegal no matter what the thesis says, who wrote it or what church you are nailing it to.
This will ban sharing with the owners permission, but only of a specific church because it is owned by people we don't like.
I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see a clear issue with freedom of speech here.
It is illegal to nail thesis to church doors, but also to trees, houses, hospitals, military installations, porches, fences, barns and anything else without the owners permission.
It is illegal no matter what the thesis says, who wrote it or what church you are nailing it to.
This will ban sharing with the owners permission, but only of a specific church because it is owned by people we don't like.
I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see a clear issue with freedom of speech here.
> Please hold while I go nail my thesis to a church door. Should that also be allowed?
You mean other than the vandalism aspect? I think that might even be vandalism if you used scotch tape.
You mean other than the vandalism aspect? I think that might even be vandalism if you used scotch tape.
I'm reasonably sure that taping stuff to church doors – or other doors you don't own – won't be looked on kindly either in many cases. There are countless of other examples; playing my thesis in a public place on speakers 24/7 is also not going to end well for you.
At some point a method to disperse speech becomes so disruptive to the general public interest it makes sense to step in. I am talking about the method of dispersal only here, NOT the content. Is TikTok too disruptive? I don't know, but I do know that is what the discussion should be about, and Rand Paul's arguments are missing the point.
At some point a method to disperse speech becomes so disruptive to the general public interest it makes sense to step in. I am talking about the method of dispersal only here, NOT the content. Is TikTok too disruptive? I don't know, but I do know that is what the discussion should be about, and Rand Paul's arguments are missing the point.
>won't be looked on kindly either in many cases. There are countless of other examples; playing my thesis in a public place on speakers 24/7 is also not going to end well for you.
Not looked at kindly and carrying the force of criminal prosecution are worlds apart
Not looked at kindly and carrying the force of criminal prosecution are worlds apart
But the point remains, and kind of too my point, that "Free Speech" in most cases is not really free -- in that there are rules and regulations to how speech can be conducted.
So TikTok is covered by freedom of speech. Okay. But what about content coming from Chinese servers, or say, foreign companies that are obligated to give your personal information to a foreign government?
It's never been so much the speech itself but how it's presented to others.
So TikTok is covered by freedom of speech. Okay. But what about content coming from Chinese servers, or say, foreign companies that are obligated to give your personal information to a foreign government?
It's never been so much the speech itself but how it's presented to others.
> "Free Speech" in most cases is not really free -- in that there are rules and regulations to how speech can be conducted.
Of course; absolute freedom rarely exist, as exercising absolute freedom tends to infringe on the freedom of others. The classic case is that my freedom to play music at 4am as loud as I please infringes on my neighbour's freedom to sleep at night. "Freedom" is not a one-dimensional axis that can go either up or down but a complex matrix with all sorts of interactions.
Of course; absolute freedom rarely exist, as exercising absolute freedom tends to infringe on the freedom of others. The classic case is that my freedom to play music at 4am as loud as I please infringes on my neighbour's freedom to sleep at night. "Freedom" is not a one-dimensional axis that can go either up or down but a complex matrix with all sorts of interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses
Scotch tape didn't exist in 1517.
Scotch tape didn't exist in 1517.
But I assure you, other forms of goo did. :D
h2odragon(1)
The US is just upset that Tik Tok doesn't allow the US gov to influence their content or access their user's data like Facebook, Twitter, and Google does. That is all this is about. The US gov just wants more backdoors and control.
This isn't a defense of Tik Tok or any of these platforms. They are all collecting massive amounts of user data and all of them are privacy nightmares. But this Tik Tok ban stuff is partially anti-China theater and mostly "why won't you allow us access and control like the other guys are doing?" garbage. This would all go away overnight if Tik Tok put ex US FBI or CIA staff on their board of directors.
This isn't a defense of Tik Tok or any of these platforms. They are all collecting massive amounts of user data and all of them are privacy nightmares. But this Tik Tok ban stuff is partially anti-China theater and mostly "why won't you allow us access and control like the other guys are doing?" garbage. This would all go away overnight if Tik Tok put ex US FBI or CIA staff on their board of directors.
I remember when Zoom got all the same attention as TikTok is getting being a Chinese spying tool, but it's been awfully quiet on that front for a while now. I wonder if Zoom coughed up some lobbying bucks or something, and this is just another extortion attempt
According to OpenSecrets:
Zoom spent $240,000 in 2022. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
Compare that to TikTok's $5.4 million in the same year
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
By your logic, TikTok should be supersafe.
Zoom spent $240,000 in 2022. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
Compare that to TikTok's $5.4 million in the same year
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
By your logic, TikTok should be supersafe.
Zoom must have bribed, I mean donated, to the right politicians. Its all theater. "It would be a shame if something were to happen to that big tech company of yours...."
They put backdoors in
Granted, the headline is a bit misleading: Paul blocked the fast-tracking of the bill. Presumably it could still make it to the floor for a full vote.