With New Security and Free Internet Issues, What Did the TikTok Deal Really Achieve? (nytimes.com) 116
Though the U.S. government averted a shutdown of TikTok through a new Oracle/Walmart partnership, that leaves much bigger questions unresolved. The biggest issue may be that banning apps "defeats the original intent of the internet," argues the New York TImes. "And that was to create a global communications network, unrestrained by national borders."
"The vision for a single, interconnected network around the globe is long gone," Jason Healey, a senior research scholar at Columbia University's School for International and Public Affairs and an expert on cyber conflict. "All we can do now is try to steer toward optimal fragmentation."
But the Times also asks whether the TikTok agreement fails even at its original goal of protecting the app from foreign influence: The code and algorithms are the magic sauce that Beijing now says, citing its own national security concerns, may not be exported to to a foreign adversary... Microsoft's bid went further: It would have owned the source code and algorithms from the first day of the acquisition, and over the course of a year moved their development entirely to the United States, with engineers vetted for "insider threats." So far, at least, Oracle has not declared how it would handle that issue. Nor did President Trump in his announcement of the deal. Until they do, it will be impossible to know if Mr. Trump has achieved his objective: preventing Chinese engineers, perhaps under the influence of the state, from manipulating the code in ways that could censor, or manipulate, what American users see.
Other questions also remain, including America's larger policy towards other apps like Telegram made by foreign countries. Even Amy Zegart, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Stanford's Freeman-Spogli Institute, complains to the Times that "bashing TikTok is not a China strategy. China has a multi-prong strategy to win the tech race. It invests in American technology, steals intellectual property and now develops its own technology that is coming into the U.S... And yet we think we can counter this by banning an app. The forest is on fire, and we are spraying a garden hose on a bush."
And another article in the Times argues that the TikTok agreement doesn't even eliminate Chinese ownership of the app: Under the initial terms, ByteDance still controls 80 percent of TikTok Global, two people with knowledge of the situation have said, though details may change. ByteDance's chief executive, Zhang Yiming, will also be on the company's board of directors, said a third person. And the government did not provide specifics about how the deal would answer its security concerns about TikTok...
A news release published by Walmart on Saturday on its website — then edited later — captured the chaos. "This unique technology eliminates the risk of foreign governments spying on American users or trying to influence them with disinformation," the company said. "Ekejechb ecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk."
But the Times also asks whether the TikTok agreement fails even at its original goal of protecting the app from foreign influence: The code and algorithms are the magic sauce that Beijing now says, citing its own national security concerns, may not be exported to to a foreign adversary... Microsoft's bid went further: It would have owned the source code and algorithms from the first day of the acquisition, and over the course of a year moved their development entirely to the United States, with engineers vetted for "insider threats." So far, at least, Oracle has not declared how it would handle that issue. Nor did President Trump in his announcement of the deal. Until they do, it will be impossible to know if Mr. Trump has achieved his objective: preventing Chinese engineers, perhaps under the influence of the state, from manipulating the code in ways that could censor, or manipulate, what American users see.
Other questions also remain, including America's larger policy towards other apps like Telegram made by foreign countries. Even Amy Zegart, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Stanford's Freeman-Spogli Institute, complains to the Times that "bashing TikTok is not a China strategy. China has a multi-prong strategy to win the tech race. It invests in American technology, steals intellectual property and now develops its own technology that is coming into the U.S... And yet we think we can counter this by banning an app. The forest is on fire, and we are spraying a garden hose on a bush."
And another article in the Times argues that the TikTok agreement doesn't even eliminate Chinese ownership of the app: Under the initial terms, ByteDance still controls 80 percent of TikTok Global, two people with knowledge of the situation have said, though details may change. ByteDance's chief executive, Zhang Yiming, will also be on the company's board of directors, said a third person. And the government did not provide specifics about how the deal would answer its security concerns about TikTok...
A news release published by Walmart on Saturday on its website — then edited later — captured the chaos. "This unique technology eliminates the risk of foreign governments spying on American users or trying to influence them with disinformation," the company said. "Ekejechb ecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk."
This isn't about "the internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about an app. Distributed via proprietary app stores to locked down appliance smartphones.
Were TikTok a simple website or server on the internet, with a public API to allow any application to interact with it, then there's little the US government could do to shut it down
If anything, this is an example of how app stores and walled gardens undermine the original ideals of the internet.
Re:This isn't about "the internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's about communications (aka, free speech).. If the US govt. wants to keep some app off the phones they own, fine. If they want to deny citizens their right to speak with others through whatever means (including technological), well, they're doing it wrong and illegally. Trying to shut down TickTock is no different than trying to shut down printing presses, or http news sites. Constitutional guarantees about "speech" and "press" are intentional, not textual. Also, encryption isn't munitions.
Re: (Score:3)
Were tiktok a website, progressive web app, or a server implementation of a standardized or open protocol, then the US Government couldn't practically do anything to block its use.
What they're blocking is a company trading in the US, and US companies trading with it. That's only something that's enforceable as a "ban" because it involves an app published through walled garden stores. Given it's about foreign trade, that's usually something squarely in the rights of the state to regulate/control.
If TikTok
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah - and they're "trading" in the data of US minors, or anyone US citizen using the app, with providing direct access to the Chinese government (which is required by Chinese law). You know, this app is blocked in India due to the privacy issues. It's not just a US thing.
Why would anyone in the US be against this deal?!???!?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - and they're "trading" in the data of US minors, or anyone US citizen using the app, with providing direct access to the Chinese government (which is required by Chinese law). You know, this app is blocked in India due to the privacy issues. It's not just a US thing.
Why would anyone in the US be against this deal?!???!?
Because it is in effect limiting an American consumer's ability to use something on his phone. This runs counters to our laws. This is almost like saying you cannot buy an e-book written in X country.
The argument about privacy is not sufficient, and the argument about NatSec is nebulous at best. Congress might have to create laws to make this legal, but until then, this is really problematic.
This is also a distraction. We have real problems going on right now (the pandemic), but this is where the govern
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is in effect limiting an American consumer's ability to use something on his phone.
This goes back to my original point. In effect, Apple and Google are limiting the consumer's ability to use things on their phone, because trading with them is necessary (for the most part) to get things on your phone.
We've successfully privatized censorship.
Once again - if this was just a web app or, in the alternative, if people weren't forced to go via app stores, there wouldn't be any trade to ban, there wouldn't be a way to block this app legally.
Re: (Score:1)
If you believe Twitter has the right to censor people then you believe it's a publisher, not a platform, so banning it isn't banning speech of citizens, it's just shutting down a troublesome business.
If you believe Twitter has no right to censor people then you believe it's a platform, so banning it is an infringement on the speech of citizens.
Unless you consider Twitter to be a citizen, in which case you should see a shrink
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you consider Twitter to be a citizen, in which case you should see a shrink
https://www.alternet.org/2014/... [alternet.org]
10 Supreme Court Rulings That Turned Corporations Into People
Buy the shirt!
http://www.supremeclothingsstore.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This isn't about "the internet" (Score:3)
America has stopped following the constitution.
Not only will trump get his supreme court pick, but they will decide a heavily contested election. Expect to see 4 more years of citizen militias patrol the streets to enforce their own order and police unable to stop them.
I hate trump but I see him winning and even winning a third term.(thanks to his stacked supreme court)
The usa is burning out of control politically.
Re:This isn't about "the internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
Do USA apps get free speech in China?
This isn't about free speech for a Chinese app. It is about free speech for the American people.
Why should the US government be able to tell American citizens what apps they can run on their phones? Where is the Constitutional authority for that?
"China does it too" is an idiotic argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck you people are stupid.
China has Chinese laws.
America has American laws.
If you prefer Chinese laws, go live in China.
The thing that makes America better is the American laws.
Don't try to change them to the Chinese laws dumbass. Or cry saying, 'well China can. Why can't we.' That's why China is worse.
FFS people
Re: This isn't about "the internet" (Score:2)
Exactly, except backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was about privacy, and how Chinese organizations are required to provide their government with direct access to all collected data, unconditionally. That is required by law - covered under the dictated surveillance measures. India has already blocked TikTok from their app stores, so this isn't just a US thing.
A vast amount of minors use TikTok, and I'm also guessing that most people use the same password that they're using on other social media and even bank accounts. If the app becomes US owne
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was about privacy, and how Chinese organizations are required to provide their government with direct access to all collected data, unconditionally. That is required by law - covered under the dictated surveillance measures.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act basically give the US government the same access to personal data that China has.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As part or that deal, Trump is demanding $5 billion. How much of that is going to directly to him we cannot know, but we know he will. He has a history of milking the tax payer dry, looking for profit at every avenue, such as charging the brave men and women who protect him nearl
Re: (Score:1)
I wish I had a positive mod point to give you. But don't forget that there is nothing in TrumpWorld but money, so of course he has to put a price tag on the YUGE deal.
I'm still predicting Chinese retaliation against the stock market in October. Get ready for a rocky ride, but the friends of Xi will be making YUGE profits on the volatility because Xi will be feeding them the timing data. Quite likely they will make $5 billion look like chump change.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
> Tik Tok is widely credited with making Trumps Tulsa rally a joke that he will never live down.
The guy has continuous rallies all the time, I don't he cares. I think you're projecting your OCD/insecurities onto him because that's your short coming. But unlike you he doesn't dwell on it, that's why he is successful. Perhaps you can learn a lesson fermion?
You have a low enough user account that you should be old enough to have gained that wisdom by now.
Re:This isn't about "the internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
But unlike you he doesn't dwell on it,
Doesn't dwell on it? The guy has it on repeat 24/7. He literally cannot let go any perceived slight. It's why, if you ask about the rally, he'll lie like he always does about how great it was despite his orange makeup stained shirt to the contrary [theatlantic.com].
that's why he is successful.
He's already had 16 failed businesses and three failed marriages. Currently, only one of his properties isn't failing. Not sure what your definition of successful is, but this ain't it.
Perhaps you can learn a lesson fermion?
Auto correct sucks, but yes, we can all learn from the con artist. We can learn that lying only digs our hole deeper, that whining like a two year old who needs a nap isn't how an adult should act, that when one becomes an adult they should take responsibility for their actions rather than blame everyone else, and putting makeup on a pig still leaves it as a pig.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd love to know why he wears orange makeup. He can afford to buy better, more natural cosmetics. He can afford to have them professionally applied so they aren't so obvious. But he doesn't, he goes with the clown makeup look.
Why does he do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason George Lucas messed up all his later involvements with Star Wars. Once you get surrounded by sycophants, you never get told no. You never get told that you made a bad choice. Or if you do, you fire them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I expect he will promise $5 billion for the wall, and then when the election is over quietly funnel it to his own companies and his friends while building a small and extremely flimsy section of it for marketing purposes.
Setting self on fire because the Web is burning? (Score:2)
Not a bad FP, but does it deserve positive moderation?
Trump has made TikTok into a political issue and it seems clear that Apple and the google think Trump can burn down the Internet to save it. I do think I have to modify my position slightly:
(1) If there is evidence that TikTok has been used to commit some crime, then the criminals should be prosecuted as aggressively as possible. (No change.)
(2) If there is evidence that TikTok is being used to do something wrong, but it isn't illegal, then the law needs
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
China bans 20+ US social media sites including Facebook since 2009 the shills say nothing.
America bans 1 Chinese social media site and in 1 week, the shills lose their minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you're still confused, the next supreme court justice will help explain how things work - for the next 30 years :)
Re: (Score:2)
How does that relate to anything I actually wrote? Actually, part of your comment might be agreeing with my main point, notwithstanding your negative tone and incoherent style.
I smell a troll, but I'll give you a chance to convince me otherwise before regarding this "discussion" branch terminated.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is effectively acting as an agent of a foreign government (one that is currently engaged in cold hostilities and a trade war with the US), able to get software they control onto the devices and networks of many US citizens and businesses. It's reasonable to regulate their actions on the grounds of national security, foreign relations, and trade.
Were TikTok operating as a US corporation, or an individual citizen operating it, then your points would cover the issue entirely, but those "foreign hostile
Re: (Score:2)
Not relevant, but at least you are polite about it. Let me know if you ever come up with any actual evidence of an actual crime committed by TikTok. Beyond being a Chinese corporation, that is. Or maybe you think you can convince the Chinese that American corporations never act as "an agent of a foreign government that is..."?
I actually think we Americans were doing a pretty good job of subverting the Chinese government. In particular, Marx was spinning in his grave. Until our dictator started fussing with
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think a crime is necessary to block trade with a foreign corporate entity that has links to a foreign adversary.
Trade, particularly foreign trade, is entirely within the purview of the state to regulate. I'm not an economic-libertarian. I don't believe free trade is the natural way, or that unfettered trade is a right, or that a completely free market is a neccessary/good thing. I think trade is something very much subject to national interest regulation and control.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you think about what you are saying, then you are advocating for America to BECOME China. You are saying that we cannot succeed unless we drop OUR principles and BECOME just like them. My basic position is that you cannot defeat your enemy by becoming your enemy.
I am not sure if there is a win-win solution here. Nor am I sure that free trade and encouraging China to become more dependent on international trade will make China better, though I think it can create internal pressures if lots of Chinese
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. This doesn't involve becoming your enemy.
Nothing here violates free speech. Speech is still possible and unregulated, it's only trade that is - specifically, international trade.
There's nothing here that's about a state oppressing its own people.
I don't see how you're in any way drawing a parallel to what China does here, in that china directly regulates the speech of domestic people and actors.
Re: (Score:2)
So NOW it sounds like you're saying it's okay because we're more clever about how we Americans do our censorship? I'm sure the whistle blowers and CDC scientists will be glad to hear that. And let's not forget about Citizens United, of course.
But mostly it's obvious that you don't understand much of what I wrote, let alone the implications of what you are writing. Sorry, but why would I invest more effort in this "discussion"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all because of a prank caused by its tik tok users and a certain mask free rally for a useful idiot
Re: (Score:2)
Tiktok has a website, but the primary mode of interaction with the service is via an app.
I could be wrong, but I believe the website is not feature-complete compared to the app.
If the website is a fully-functional drop-in replacement for the app, then (effectively) banning the app would not have been much of a threat to TikTok's business. Anyone could have continued to use it via the web.
Re: (Score:2)
The ban isn't on the app. It's on doing business with the US. That means that none of their US employees get paid, among many other significant things. Tik Tok is not a viral idea or free speech on its own. It's a business that operates on an advertising model. Without advertisers being allowed to pay in, why would it continue?
Trump made a deal, that's what it achieved (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The master of the deal made a deal. Mission accomplished. Vote Trump!
Exactly.
"What Did the TikTok Deal Really Achieve?"
It scored political points for Trump, helping him to get re-elected. There is nothing more important to Trump now.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
"What Did the TikTok Deal Really Achieve?"
It scored political points for Trump, helping him to get re-elected. There is nothing more important to Trump now.
So politics as usual, basically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget the $5 million kickback for his student brainwashing thing.
It's not 5 million. It's 5 billion. Yes, 5 BILLION.
Re: Trump made a deal, that's what it achieved (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use another app (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It was a shakedown. Who doesn't want a crook running the country?
Ah, "...unrestrained by national borders..." (Score:4, Insightful)
That was the promise of:
the internet
tvision
phones
scientific research
space exploration
weather forecasting
stock markets
electricity
agriculture
air travel
boat travel
time zones
postal mail
the telegram
music albums
free trade
military alliances
dowries
forcefully marrying the princess of your conquered enemy
I love that humans still think that there's a way to get geographically-distant, culturally-distant, religiously-distant, size-distant organizationally-distant peoples to share anything.
Might want to try removing the borders between main street and second avenue first. If you can get your slightly wealthier and your slightly less wealthy to agree on, say, whether or not the shared local fire station should get a new oxygen tank with tax dollars, then you can talk about the USA agreeing with China.
Until then, maybe you shouldn't have a tongue.
Re: (Score:2)
also...
play-writes
the traveling minstrel
the olympics
Re: (Score:1)
also...
Aesop, and put to death for his trouble.
You sailed all around the biggie: Hebrews.
As the right to bear arms was made impractical when Prohibition resulted in an asymmetry of ballistic-based weaponry stockpiled by sheriffs and police forces (a vacuum previously filled with a field cannon), so protecting a search of private papers became impractical with circuitry sufficiently sophisticated to collect and report a user's habits encumbered with a terms of service agreement.
That's if you believe the rig
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand a word of what you've said as it might relate to technological blurring of borders. AI?
Original Intent Of The Internet (Score:2)
The original intent of the Internet was to create a robust network that could survive damage like a nuclear war. For the US Military to use.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:wtf did the editor fall alseep on the keyboard? (Score:4, Informative)
Not the Slashdot editor. It was on the actual Wal-Mart press release:
http://web.archive.org/web/202... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure Trump wrote that part himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Control. (Score:5, Interesting)
A shitload of them made Trump & the GOP look like fools at Trump's first rally. The GOP was a little miffed, but they also recognized the threat of young people organizing politically. Just like they did for Occupy Wall Street before that and Nixon's drug war before that.
When ever you find kids getting political you'll find the GOP there to break it up. As a party they take care of all potential angles. That's how/why they're about to get 3 Supreme Court seats and overturn the ACA & Roe v Wade all in one go. It's how & why they win.
Re: (Score:1)
> I've pointed this out on several threads, but this isn't about China being a risk, this is about young people using Tik Tok to organize politically.
what... and take away jobs from hard working liberals at Twitter!?
If selling out America is outsourced to China, all those Twitter twats are going to be out of a job.
Re: (Score:3)
The GOP does a lot of really evil shit. It should go without saying, so does Trump. This isn't one of them, and people like you (along with the good writers at the NYT) make the anti-Trump left look like weak, blithering, conspiratorial, fact-denying fools when you try to spin it like this.
There are fifty thousand things you can (and should) be attack
Re: (Score:2)
Shane_Optima: That is what I came here to say. I will add one thing though. People are so used to giving up all semblance of privacy for a little convenience that they see no difference between giving personal data to Google vs the Chinese Communist Party. Personally, I don't trust either of them, but there is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Hikvision, which literally sells Internet-connected cameras tied to servers in China, is only banned from being used in the US government.
If you allow Hikvision while blocking Tik Tok, it is not about security.
Re: Easy. Control. (Score:2)
Not a bad plan at all. Too bad the Dems don't get it...
Um... it's changing hands into a staunch ally (Score:2)
And read my post. This isn't "Orange Man Bad", this is a decades long strategy to disrupt youth political organizing going back to Richard Nixon. This is just another notch in the belt of that fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's "staunch ally" is not going to shut down political Tik Tokers between now and the election. Even if it were shut down, it' s also rather dumb to assume it would "disrupt youth political organizing" given the fact that the youth are pretty adept at being able to install new apps.
It
Re: (Score:2)
Read my post. As per TFS and as per what Trump had been saying since day one, this isn't disrupting anything. The ability to sell off Tik Tok was always on the table and was always the most probable course of action.
To a company that is subject to U.S. laws about subpoenas. They aren't content with shutting down the service that youth are using to organize, because they would just switch to another. No, they want a service that they can monitor.
Re: (Score:1)
Or just look at the Green Party. Democrats are doing everything in their power to make sure they don't appear on the ballot in a number of states like Pennsylvania (the candidate submitted the paperwork with their correct address, but then moved so the paperwork was found to be defective), Montana (some financing came from Republicans--can'
As a wise foreign policy analyst once said... (Score:1)
At the height of the Cold War, a highly respected foreign policy analyst specializing in espionage once said:
"Ekejechb ecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk."
Give it to Oracle... (Score:5, Funny)
Oracle will drive it into the ground, like they've done with everything else they got their hands on. Once it's dead, problem solved.
Re: (Score:1)
Letting HP purchase Tiktok would have been too obvious. At least Larry will give it the slow drawn out death it deserves.
I hear they're re-writing the site in java... applets.
Can we please STFU re stuff Trump is RIGHT about? (Score:1, Flamebait)
The biggest issue may be that banning apps "defeats the original intent of the internet," argues the New York TImes. "And that was to create a global communications network, unrestrained by national borders."
Fuck me, can we please just stop this shit? I said it four years ago, I'll say it again now: the man gives us an unfathomable amount of ammunition to use against him. Why do this shit?
I don't want China spying on us. I don't want Facebook, GOOG, AMZN, etc. or the three letter organizations spying on us, either, but China is clearly a larger threat (they are capable and perfectly willing to sell data to US corporations at the same time they use it for their own purposes.) I don't know if the details of th
Re: (Score:3)
How can it be that four years have passed and people are still doubling down on this "Orange Man Bad" volume-stuck-on-11 strategy that totally drowns out the actual key issues that matter?
When people start getting political, they also start getting stupid.
It's a lot like sports, and how you see a fat guy with no shirt on (painted in the colors of the team he's randomly sided with) screaming excitedly about the last play. He thinks the guys in tights did a really good job throwing a ball around and it's important.
Re: (Score:2)
people are still doubling down on this "Orange Man Bad" volume-stuck-on-11 strategy that totally drowns out the actual key issues that matter?
The people, and the press. If I had mod points they'd be yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't I be able to sell my personal data to China if I so choose?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm torn, because you are absolutely right: One of the biggest problems in opposing Trump is that the list of outrages is like an old line printer or a ticker-tape machine, as you stop to read one there are four more being added to the list. The correct thing to do would be to seize on one and simply not let it go, but seeing everything else just pile up while you ask the same question again and again is hard to stomach because what if you can't get an answer? In a way that was what the impeachment was abou
The purpose explained (Score:4)
The purpose is described by Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO) right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Basically, it's to sell your information, to companies and to the government.
the internet wasn't designed... (Score:1)
Stop it now, while you still can....
Reciprocity (Score:3)
For a long time, US companies have had to partner with domestic Chinese companies in joint ventures in order to do business in China. Now TikTok is the first Chinese company forced into such a joint venture to operate in the US. It probably won't be the last.
Reciprocity is fair play.
Original Intent of the Internet (Score:1)
"And that was to create a global communications network, unrestrained by national borders."
This is was not the original intent of the internet. "The Internet was designed 35 years ago as a robust, distributed network without centralized control in order to provide resiliency against a multitude of attacks, including nuclear war. "
Here's a reference from US department of homeland security: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/a... [dhs.gov]
I guarantee you the US virtual internet borders are managed in the same sense as the p
endarkenment (Score:2)
That wasn't the promise (Score:1)
Besides, whoever thought the internet was meant to cross borders and be free of countries was dreaming. That was true as long as the internet made people money, but now that the internet is skewing elections, the gloves are off. As soon as it's deemed a threat to the State, the State starts putting in controls to ensure it
Press release (Score:2)
"Ekejechbecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk"
That's either the PR person demonstrating their frustration at the pointlessless of the acquisition, or their cat walked across the keyboard.
Either way, Ekejechbecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk, indeed.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's "cofeve" in Chinese.
Re: (Score:1)
Am hoping you crypto folks can decipher that for me.
Facebook is a Much Greater Threat (Score:2)
Facebook is already interfering in the US' free and fair elections, but because Zuckerberg supports Donald Trump, the president will do nothing to stop the threat of Facebook.
TikTok does not present a threat. This is a silly distraction. Plus, a President should not be in the business of legislating which businesses can operate in America. That's Congress' job: Legislation.
"steals intellectual property" (Score:1)
True, but they also do wrong things.
Not at all, unless you live in a rogue state. "The globe" =/= USA and the UK.
This isn't about Tik-Tok (Score:1)
Where in the US Constitution or Federal Law does it say the president can declare a specific product off limits, and force its nationalization (ownership by US government or government controlled entity) or force its sale to a specific company. Where does it say the president gets to approve it. Where does it say they have to "form a foundation in Texas" and "put money in it" to "educate" [texans=idiots?] as to something?
This is such a monumental overreach of rights and yet people are only focusing on "O
Social media (Score:2)
The Tik Tok deal with Oracle mean that the CIA gets it's cut of information and the Chinese still get what they want.
Hypocrisy at its finest (Score:2)
The original stated rationale was that CCP leverage over the Chinese company could put US citizen data at risk, and that a US owned-and-operated company would put up some sort of a buffer against this. Now we see that the Chinese company still retains their majority ownership, meaning the stated risks have been in no way addressed - ByteDance's obligation to comply with Chinese law doesn't change if it has 100% ownership or 80%. If anything, this looks like the state leveraging its muscle to do favours to i
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. This is done on behalf of continuing U.S. dominance on the global net - all the (long overgrown) big players there are U.S. companies, cowardly bowing on hearings, allowed do make another billions of buck all along, yet under utter control within this country, with Trump effectively being their main man, and as a side-effect, being controlled for their global action just as well. Get your act back to U.S., will you recall? America first, yet forget it not - I'm your master.
This story is one of lie
It made Trump look strong (Score:2)
The purpose was to make it look like Trump was taking forceful action against China (but without doing anything that would actually piss China off).
Any similarity between that and well-designed, carefully-considered policy to address real issues of national security is purely coincidental.
Hilarity (Score:2)
About the only achievement is that now we can see the hilarity of a company like Oracle trying to figure out how to market to teens and pre-teens.
Bwahahahaha (Score:1)
"violates original intent of the internet".
No sense of history with the unwashed.
Purpose acheived (Score:2)