Bipartisan Group of State Attorneys General Launch Nationwide Investigation Into TikTok

Today, Attorney General Maura Healey launched a nationwide investigation into whether TikTok is designing, operating, and promoting its social media platform to children, teens, and young adults in a manner that causes or exacerbates physical and mental health harms. Attorneys general nationwide are examining whether the company violated state consumer protection laws and put the public at risk. Mass.gov: AG Healey, along with her colleagues across the country, has long expressed concern about the negative impacts of social media platforms on Massachusetts's youngest residents. "As children and teens already grapple with issues of anxiety, social pressure, and depression, we cannot allow social media to further harm their physical health and mental wellbeing," said AG Healey. "State attorneys general have an imperative to protect young people and seek more information about how companies like TikTok are influencing their daily lives." Leading the investigation into TikTok is a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont. They are joined by a broad group of attorneys general from across the country.

Here, let me save some taxdollars

[hdyoung]

“Um, yeah that’s literally the business model for every single social media site on the planet”

That counts as both investigation and final report. Free of charge.

Re:

[cayenne8]

Look, you have studies on social media and kids, particularly young teen girls and how it harms them.

Why not be simple...require them to only allow access to social media by those that are adults, 18 or older (Hell, go 21 if you want)....

That would then force them to stop pushing ads to teens and collecting info on teens.

I know no age verification system is perfect, BUT, if you give this a try, it will cut down on number of teens on social media, thus reducing the draw of teens to social media.

We have a

Re:

[Asynchronously]

Or maybe parents can be responsible for the habits of their children instead of the nanny state.

Re:

[hdyoung]

While I think I agree with you on this one, there are people who argue that it should be legal to sell fentanyl to children because FREEEDUUMM and, hey, shouldnt it be the parents responsibility to manage their kids drug habit rather than some liberal nanny state? Those people are idiots who are clueless about the species they profess to belong to. It’s reasonable to debate how firmly a government can/should nudge its citizens away from destructive behaviors. This one probably falls on the side of

End result == tiny money fine

[will4]

Why since 100 years ago have govenement investigations into bad business practices result in only money fines? 100 years ago they resulted in breaking up of trusts.

The US, EU were not built up to have 5 large companies have 80%+ of the market.

The solution is to break up these companies, instead of a fine which is paid by company liability insurance

Re:

[omnichad]

Broken clock fallacy. Sometimes you can be right for the wrong reasons.
Right reason: negative impact the app is having on people
Wrong reason: TikTok users were mean to me

Re:

[omnichad]

Yeah - it's just a coincidence that he only took action 2 weeks after the aforementioned rally. Even though TikTok had been under review by the federal government for most of a year by that point without any action.

15 day deadline. Everyone talks, nobody knows anyt

[raymorris]

Trump took action precisely when he was allowed not and required not by law. He has to sign off (or refuse to) within 15 days. By law.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, formally requested the CFIUS investigation because Bytedance had blatantly violated the terms of the acquisition. That means CFIUS has to do their process.

After CFIUS does their process, which takes about a year, the president has 15 days to sign off on the finding. Or choose not to sign off on it. He doesn't get to choose the

Re:

[omnichad]

The action I'm referring to was while CFIUS was still ongoing. Both the July 7 announcement of their own investigation and the July 31st divesture order happened long before that investigation was complete.

Re:

[raymorris]

> Both the July 7 announcement of their own investigation and the July 31st divesture order happened

You're thinking of the August 14 order that was discussed on July 31. That would be the order sending it back to CFIUS to certify compliance after 60 days. That's the order giving them an extra 60 days, and directing CFIUS to grant an additional 30 days if certain conditions were met.

Re:

[CaptQuark]

Trump does not care what you think of him.

BwaaaHaaaHaaa!! Mod +10 funny!!

Re:

[lilTimmy]

Look, I know there's no point in talking to you because you're completely deluded by the FOX News turd machine. You can't honestly blame Biden for Ukraine though. That's ridiculous. This was happening regardless. The only difference is that Trump would have been saying "Vlad says they're not in Ukraine and I don't see why they would be, why would they go there." While his own intelligence team is showing him videos of missiles hitting. Trump was lucky enough to avoid war because he was a 1 term, twice

Re:

[HiThere]

Most people would consider me a leftist, and I supported a modified form of that...and also thought it wasn't sufficient.
What I supported was banning from federal military bases and other secure areas any application that called home that hadn't been specifically approved as not something that would put information on troop locations or other sensitive data at risk. And I still support that.

This is a different "grounds for attack", and I'll need to think about it, but I'm not certain I'm against it. As fo

Re:

[lilTimmy]

This is probably the only thing you're right about. He did want it banned because it is Chinese. Not because he knows anything about it or has any nuanced thought on the matter. Because he blames Chhyynnnaa for COVID and needs to appeal to his base.

Like other social media?

[Catvid-22]

Whatever mental crack Tiktok is serving up to teens is probably true of all other social media platforms. It's in the nature of drug. Give adults or teens an easy way to show off, and they will show off. Now if showing off becomes the norm, those who have difficulty or are unable to show off become disadvantaged. I mean didn't we see the same thing when we were, I presume, growing up? There were always the popular kids, the alpha kings and queens, and then the kids lower in the pecking order or the troop. They're the ones that get bullied. I don't know, but I'd rather be bullied in social media than in real life. Fix the schools before you fix anti-social media.

Re:

[CubicleZombie]

Whatever mental crack Tiktok is serving up to teens is probably true of all other social media platforms.

I've taught my children from a young age that videos are to be recorded in LANDSCAPE mode only. Hopefully they'll avoid TikTok as teens because it's just wrong, just like pineapple on pizza and hanging the toilet paper with the loose end behind. We have standards.

Re:

[dsgrntlxmply]

I once cat-sat for a friend on travel. I install toilet paper loose end to the front. I returned one day to find a smirking cat and the entire roll of paper unwound onto the floor and partially shredded.

Re:

[No Longer an AC]

If a cat wants to play with your toilet paper it doesn't matter which way you install it. This is why I don't bother installing it at all. It's in the cabinet under the sink which fortunately is within reach of the toilet.

Re:

[lilTimmy]

You could just try keeping the door closed.

Wrong

[SmaryJerry]

Of course Tiktok can be addictive but they shouldn’t be sued over it. If someone made a burger that was so delicious that someone out of their own decisions ate too much that it effected their health, then the burger place shouldn’t be sued either. People need to take personal responsibility for themselves and for their children.

Re:

[HiThere]

Scale matters. That addictive burger place might reasonably be allowed on a small scale, but once they start growing it's proper to place them under additional scrutiny and tighter regulation. The larger they are, the more strongly they should be regulated.

Remember, once upon a time most hair dyes contained lots of lead. We don't allow that any more. So are you arguing that we should allow that, and let people choose? Remember that people don't notice delayed or subtle effects.

I Genuinely Laughed...

[IonOtter]

...at the title of this post.

TikTok isn't mental crack, it's frickin' methamphetamine. We're talking Heisenberg quality, here.

Anyone I know with TT on their phone just scrolls, non-stop, unlike anything I've ever seen before, and these are folks who don't have any diagnosed problems.

The folks I know with ADHD or Autism Spectrum Disorder are practically helpless without a non-stop fix. It's genuinely frightening.

Nanny State

[Asynchronously]

This is the responsibility of parents, not the nanny state.

Re:

[Virtucon]

but parents willingly abdicate their responsibilities if it gives them a little more "me" time.

If you can't take care of them physically, emotionally, and intellectually then don't bring them into the world.