Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

The US is Right To Target TikTok, Says Vinod Khosla (ft.com) 90

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Vinod Khosla, the founder of venture capital firm Khosla Ventures, opines on the bill that seeks to ban TikTok or force its parent firm to divest the U.S. business: Even if one could argue that this bill strikes at the First Amendment, there is legal precedent for doing so. In 1981, Haig vs Agee established that there are circumstances under which the government can lawfully impinge upon an individual's First Amendment rights if it is necessary to protect national security and prevent substantial harm. TikTok and the AI that can be channelled through it are national and homeland security issues that meet these standards.

Should this bill turn into law, the president would have the power to force any foreign-owned social media to be sold if US intelligence agencies deem them a national security threat. This broader scope should protect against challenges that this is a bill of attainder. Similar language helped protect effective bans on Huawei and Kaspersky Lab. As for TikTok's value as a boon to consumers and businesses, there are many companies that could quickly replace it. In 2020, after India banned TikTok amid geopolitical tensions between Beijing and New Delhi, services including Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, MX TakaTak, Chingari and others filled the void.Â

Few appreciate that TikTok is not available in China. Instead, Chinese consumers use Douyin, the sister app that features educational and patriotic videos, and is limited to 40 minutes per day of total usage. Spinach for Chinese kids, fentanyl -- another chief export of China's -- for ours. Worse still, TikTok is a programmable fentanyl whose effects are under the control of the CCP.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US is Right To Target TikTok, Says Vinod Khosla More

The US is Right To Target TikTok, Says Vinod Khosla

Comments Filter:

  • Vinod Khosla (Score:5, Funny)

    by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2024 @12:43PM (#64383796)
    I'm glad we have this guy to set us straight. I was almost rooting for Tik Tok, but Mr. Vinod Khosla showed me the error of my ways.

  • Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ThumpBzztZoom ( 6976422 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2024 @12:54PM (#64383832)

    Why should we care about a random venture capitalists's opinion on this? How is his opinion of constitutionality in any way relevant?

    How is this any different from asking a constitutional lawyer about tech stock investing?

    Being an expert in an extremely narrow field does not mean your opinion is relevant on everything else. They might as well have written about the opinion of Tiktok's legal position from a construction worker or professional bowler.

    • I decided to google him and was shocked to find he was one of the founders of Sun Microsystems. He has to be backing something that would benefit from a Tiktok ban.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why should we care about a random venture capitalists's opinion on this? How is his opinion of constitutionality in any way relevant?

      How is this any different from asking a constitutional lawyer about tech stock investing?

      Being an expert in an extremely narrow field does not mean your opinion is relevant on everything else. They might as well have written about the opinion of Tiktok's legal position from a construction worker or professional bowler.

      Because he has won the great meritocracy and you have not? You really should read Atlas Shrugged [wikipedia.org] it might open your eyes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Why should we care about a random venture capitalists's opinion on this? How is his opinion of constitutionality in any way relevant?

      You shouldn't care about his opinion because of who he is. You should read and evaluate the strength of his data and arguments. (Unfortunately the link is behind a paywall so I can't...)

      • You shouldn't care about his opinion because of who he is. You should read and evaluate the strength of his data and arguments.

        Yeah, isn't it neat that some rich dude I've never even heard of before can get his opinion about TikTok in front of millions of people because he's got the money to do so? All while those of us who don't have the money to have our speech artificially amplified run into things like getting shadowbanned on X because their bot detection algorithm sucks. [twitter.com]

        That's the thing Mr. shit-for-brains venture capitalist doesn't realize. Regular people don't get to do things like put out press releases or run advertising

        • There are plenty of other platforms to use when TikTok (hopefully) bites the dust...

          Platform != Speech

          • There are other platforms hosting short format videos, but you have to ask yourself how bad they must be if most people prefer using a Chinese platform instead.

            • Bad at what? Manipulating children into thinking their platform is good using loud noises and flashing lights?

            • Notice that FBI-infested Twitter mysteriously bought and shut down Vine just as TikTok was rising.

              They said they couldn't figure out how to sell ads.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by jonadab ( 583620 )
          In terms of free speech, the TikTok platform was already yanked out from under you before you ever tried to stand on it. It is easily the *most* heavily narrative-shaped social media platform ever to gain widespread adoption in the West. (Douyin and Weibo and WeChat are even worse, but nobody in America uses those platforms except to talk to family members who are located in countries with extreme levels of government censorship, where everything else is blocked.)

          What we should've done, about ten years ag

      • There's no actual data. The guy is just making the observation that "winning hearts and minds with surveillance and viral ideas are among this century's main theaters of warfare."

        That observation isn't wrong, but it applies to all social media, propaganda web sites, biased news sites/shows. It's not specific to TikTok, but that's the only thing he's suggesting banning so that's a bit... interesting.

        • It's not interesting at all.

          The other platforms are run in and from this nation. TikTok is run in and from and oh yeah, BY China. China is an adversary and TikTok is a weapon.

          One of these things is not like the others, and pretending they are the same is not going to impress anyone. They are similar in that they are all toxic, but the type of toxicity differs.

    • Why should we care about a random venture capitalists's opinion on this? How is his opinion of constitutionality in any way relevant?

      Haven't you heard? Anyone who has made piles of money in the tech sector is automatically an expert in any field he or she chooses to dabble in. Ask Elon and his fanbois - they'll set you straight! p>I guess it's unfair to single Musk out though - Bill Gates is perhaps the OG of this 'school' of 'thought', and Flying Spaghetti Monster knows there are dozens more like him.

      Being an expert in an extremely narrow field does not mean your opinion is relevant on everything else.

      These days, people's assessment of relevance is based more prominence, wealth, and perceived success than on the knowledge or competenc

    • Haven't you been paying attention? Rich people think they know better than the rest of us about how to run a democracy, and they can throw their money around to make sure their megaphone is louder than yours.

      Problem is, you'll typically find that what's in a wealthy person's best interests are not necessarily going to align with what's in yours.

    • Why should we care about a random venture capitalists's opinion on this?

      While I don't think he's worth listening to and always has an agenda including making himself money; he's not really "random." Dude is a VC legend, probably in the Top 5 VCs in the world in almost anyone's list.

  • You can't indoctrinate our people, we get to do that.

  • A venture capitalist has an opinion on a company? Stop the presses!

  • 100% Bogus premise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mysidia ( 191772 )

    Haig vs Agee established that there are circumstances under which the government can lawfully impinge upon an individual's First Amendment rights
    if it is necessary to protect national security and prevent substantial harm.

    Haig vs Agee would be greatly in error. The Constitution's First Amendment has no Except to protect national security clause. That would be for a good reason "national security" is Not an exception to the First amendment.

    In fact.. the Government can assert that anything inconvenient t

    • The Constitution's First Amendment has no Except to protect national security clause.

      And yet, how many people who have served in the military or one of the three letter intelligence services, or administrations, or anything similar, have been prevented from telling what they know when writing a book? Witness Valerie Plame who had entire pages of her book blacked out [goodreads.com] by the government because it believed the writing could reveal national secruity secrets or processes and methods.

      "Presents national securit

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        And yet, how many people who have served in the military or one of the three letter intelligence services, or administrations, or anything similar, have been prevented from telling what they know when writing a book?

        If you work for those agencies and handle secret information, then you signed away your right by free choice. There are a lot of jobs where you may sign a confidentiality agreement regarding your employer's information --- that Does not mean you did not have a Free speech right, but you volu

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jonadab ( 583620 )
        > And yet, how many people who have served in the military or one of the
        > three letter intelligence services, or administrations, or anything similar,
        > have been prevented from telling what they know when writing a book?

        That's different. Keeping secrets internally is not the same thing as preventing
        political rivals from expressing their opinions.

        The problem with the "free speech" argument is that it's completely totally
        irrelevant. Foreign governments don't have a right to free speech in America,
        a
    • One major problem with your narrative.

      Platform != Speech

    • ""Presents national security issues" does Not mean Tiktok and Tiktok users and other companies doing in the business don't have 1st amendment rights."

      No, but it does mean national security is a valid reason to kick out TikTok, as it always has been considered a valid limitation on free speech. That's how we can have classified information you can go to jail for sharing, even if you did not commit a crime to collect it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      Yeah, that argument is nonsense.

      But forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok isn't a violation of free speech. If you think speech on TikTok is anything resembling free, I have a bridge to sell you. What we should be doing (about ten years ago by preference) is putting ByteDance on an entity list and making it illegal to do business with them because of their ties to the PLA.

  • There's usually a post claiming "wokeness made this mess". Where is it? [youtube.com] Without it my morning rhythm is all off.

  • Once the government talked about banning tick Tok, I signed up. I think what this is really a out is younger generations are using the platform to disseminate info that the people in power dislike. Better crush that in the name of freedom and patriotism. This county is fucked.

    • When the former president wanted to ban it, I downloaded it to check it out. It's not my cup of tea, but that just further reinforces my belief that it shouldn't be banned. As the famous quote [wikipedia.org] goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

  • Although difficult to care much.... (Score:3)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2024 @01:41PM (#64383954) Journal

    I never really understood the fixation on banning TikTok, while SO many other products and services Americans use daily come out of China and even collect info in data centers under their control?

    The most popular drones people fly are made by DJI, a Chinese company. The Roborock robot vacuum cleaners are made in China and stay signed in to a cloud server that keeps maps of the rooms of your house stored on it, and can even store images from the vacuum's camera to help it avoid certain types of furniture. Bambu Labs is making the most popular 3D printer on the market right now, and they're owned by some engineers in China who came from DJI. All their printers are cloud connected, too.

    I think TikTok is ultimately pretty useless. Just one more place to throw poorly made videos, to pretend you're more important than you are. :)
    But it's hard to see how their site poses a security risk to the nation any worse than other social media platforms.

    • The most popular drones people fly are made by DJI, a Chinese company.

      Actually, the government is trying to ban DJI drones, too. [reddit.com]

      If Uncle Sam does realize that Chinese cloud servers are a thing and decides to give those the ban hammer as well, I'm truly fucked there because all my home automation stuff is in the Tuya ecosystem. Well, realistically I'd probably just configure their traffic to be routed through a VPN, but still, it'd be annoying.

      • Supposedly DJI is cleared for use on some government projects. My old job was paranoid and had special laptops that connected to a dedicated network for the sole purpose of updating DJI firmware.

        • Supposedly DJI is cleared for use on some government projects.

          This is new. It would give the FCC authority to ban DJI equipment from operating in the wireless spectrum, which amounts to a de facto ban of DJI drones since they're all operated wirelessly.

          In all likelihood it's just another one of those bills that will end up dying at some point along the legislative process, but it's proof that anti-China sentiment is running rather strong lately.

    • For real. Cheap electronics like cctv cameras that send packets back to the mainland, fake memory cards, fake designer brands, cheap spices with high lead content, childrens toys contaminated with heavy metals, you name it. Physical items that actually do harm children.

      • Physical items that actually do harm children.

        Also Made in China generic ibuprofen from Walmart that totally does not work. Ask me how I know.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      I never really understood the fixation on banning TikTok

      TikTok — for obvious reasons — is not as responsive to pressure from establishment thought police. That's it. That's what this is about.

      The Powers That Be live in constant anxiety over everything that's said on social media. Nothing consumes more of their attention than what is being said about them and their policies on Facebook, TikTok, X, etc. While they can, and have, backdoor all the US based platforms and disappear wrong-thinkers, they can't fire off an e-mail from a quasi-government

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by migos ( 10321981 )
      It's because there are 150M Americans addicted to TikTok and a lot of them use it as main source of information. TikTok alone can sway public opinion just by changing some algorithm, just like Facebook. Except that Facebook is American owned and has to somewhat answer to US government.

  • What a Crock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jpatters ( 883 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2024 @01:44PM (#64383960)

    What a bunch of nonsense.

    TikTok should not be allowed on devices that are required to be secure for government use but neither should Facebook or X or YouTube or any other similar app.

    The argument that it does not violate the First Amendment to ban it is ridiculous when you consider that Meta is perfectly happy to sell all the data that the CCP could ever want right to them, and there is no provision in the proposed law to stop that from happening.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      Forcing ByteDance out doesn't violate the first amendment because ByteDance isn't the American public; it's part of the narrative-shaping aparatus of a hostile foreign power, which has no legal rights at all under US law. We should've had them on an entity list ten years ago.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jpatters ( 883 )

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

        I don't see any "except for foreign corporations" clause in there, not to mention all the users who are going to have their speech unconstitutionally abridged by this bill if it becomes law. If you question if "abridging the freedom of sp

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by jonadab ( 583620 )
          > I don't see any "except for foreign corporations" clause in there,

          The word "corporation" here is disengenuous. We're talking about a genocidal government that has materially subsidized the platform's growth specifically so they can use it for propaganda purposes, not some kind of normal for-profit company. (In fact, converting TikTok _into_ a normal for-profit company is the entire point of the bill. That's why the Chinese government hates it so much. They don't want to give up control.)

          And I chall

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by jonadab ( 583620 )
            > I challenge you to find an example of any federal court ruling
            > wherein it has been decided that foreign governments, have
            > the rights granted in the US constitution. They don't.

            And furthermore, if they did, some of the treaties we've made at
            the ends of wars, would be violations of our constitution. The
            agreement we made with Japan at the end of WWII, and the
            constitution we forced them to adopt (certain points of which we
            later regretted due to the Cold War), are a prominent example.
            But no, the Ge

  • TikTok is indeed Fentanyl (Score:4, Interesting)

    by seeker ( 9636 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2024 @02:14PM (#64384030)

    I think is crazy we have to have this discussion: the principles are just so clear.

    ByteDance and therefore TikTok are by Chinese law subject to the control of the Chinese Government aka the Chinese Communist Party . That same government is ethnic cleansing both Tibet (remember when Hollywood cared about Tibet?) and the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province. They have erected large prison systems to imprison and 'educate' large numbers of Uyghurs, some say over a million. Some are raped, some are tortured, some just never come home. You can check the BBC for details on that. And yet the TikTok apologists look away. And oh yes the Chinese are exporting Fentanyl or its component chemicals to the US and Mexico, where it feeds death, murder and mayhem, maybe as a retribution for the Opium Wars, maybe just another asymmetric warfare campaign being waged by the Chinese government.

    This is not a First Amendment issue: the Chinese government does not have 1st amendment rights here. And through the famous TikTok algorithm, it implicitly editorializes the content presented to TikTok users. Would you allow the US Government the same editorial privilege? TikTok defenders, all of them, are choosing to trust the motivations of the Chinese government over the US.

    Where there not many other platforms for users to communicate basically the same way you would still not have an argument. But that is not the case.

    TikTok is a propaganda platform, despite the large measure of entertainment content. TikTok defenders have their heads in the sand. Maybe they should go to China, where TikTok, X and many other platforms are not available and try there to freely express their non-existent 1st amendment rights.

    • This is not a First Amendment issue: the Chinese government does not have 1st amendment rights here.

      However, the American users do have 1A rights. The problem with your argument is that the government can't take away someone's megaphone simply because it has a "Made in China" sticker on it.

      Yes, China is hypocritical and their government sucks. If our government assumes we're incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need to be protected from corrupting outside influences, then it's also more like China's than we're willing to admit.

      “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not be

      • "the government can't take away someone's megaphone simply because it has a "Made in China" sticker on it."

        That's China's megaphone. They write the algorithms which decide which speech is amplified and which is lost. And they have the power to bypass those algorithms.

        You also absolutely can ban megaphones which have illegal features, and even seize them.

        • They write the algorithms which decide which speech is amplified and which is lost. And they have the power to bypass those algorithms.

          You're missing the point that the people speaking are still Americans. The fact that the platform is prioritizing some speech over that of others' is no different than how X operates. In fact, X straight up told me I'm riding back of the bus because their bot detection algorithm doesn't think my 15-year-old account belongs to a human.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by seeker ( 9636 )

        There are no shortage of megaphones available: YouTube, X, IG, FB are just a few. Or buy ad time if you really care. Or self-publish on SubStack or Medium or....

        The possibilities are endless. TikTok, somewhat uniquely, is controlled and actively manipulated by a known authoritarian state actor.

        This is not a 1A issue. No one is denying the megaphone, and to be clear the proposal is to force the sale of TikTok, not eliminate it.

  • Tiktok is a problem for the US. It's plainly clear that China has access to any Tiktok data that they decide they want.

    I guess that I don't really have a problem with this. You can be damn sure that when the US government wants data from Facebook, Google and Apple, they bloody well get it. And if some other country doesn't want Uncle Sam getting access to app data, they're well within their rights to ban stuff. Why should China treat tiktok any differently?

    But that means that the US needs to cont

  • This should be fun! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I made popcorn so I watch all the 1A absolutists on Slashdot come out (of which I generally am one) come out to defend a Chinese psy-op after most of the same dumb dumbs sat back and cheered while the government shit all over everyone's right to peaceful assembly thru the entire pandemic..

  • This is all a scam. The US Gov want to break up TikTok, give it to their friends for free, and pocket a utter shit ton money for doing it.
    This is NOT protecting American interests what so ever. Stop believing that.

  • Social media WILL be used for propaganda and agitprop. The jurisdiction of the controlling entity tells you which government will have the most power over the company, and the user base, as the target, tells you who is likely taking aim.

    Blocking it at political borders is a measure of control, but Russia had little issues using Facebook and others both directly and through proxies. Then there is the domestic issue - in countries like the US blocking the external threat is insufficient when you have domest

  • Even leaving aside free speech rights:

    We do not have bills of attainder [wikipedia.org] in free societies, nor even in semi-free ones like ours (Article I, Section 9, of U.S. Constitution).

    I say this even though I hate TikTok, and wish it would die horribly in a fire.

    Rule of law is more important than my, or anyone else's, personal preferences.

  • Wrong. (Score:3)

    by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2024 @03:36PM (#64384244)
    The problem isn't the first amendment, the problem is that it's a bill of attainder.
    The executive can impose limits upon freedoms under the auspices of national security, but Congress cannot pass a bill limiting the rights of a specific entity.
    Congress can also pass a law strongly suggesting times when the executive should do so (though forcing him is a separation of powers issue)

    Rules are rules, and they exist for a reason.
    Separation of powers, and Congress being barred from trying to be the executive are, for better or worse, how the system works.

    Congress could, if it were staffed by competent people, pass a bill imposing sweeping limits on foreign owned corporations in general, but here's the thing- they don't want to do that. They have no problem with them. They want *this* one to get fucked. And that's not a power they have, and not by omission. It is one they are specifically denied from having

  • This isn't actually new for America. The Government was keen on taking over Hawaii for the benefit of Dole, which was having trouble hiring workers at low wages. So, we sent in troops to "liberate" Hawaii for a canned fruit company.

    The Government is now keen on taking over TikTok for the benefit of some rich American company. This has nothing to do with security threats. It's entirely about money. It is grossly corrupt on the face of it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      I've heard it's nothing to do with money either. Supposedly it's the same reason Iraq was invaded in 2003 ... Israel desired it be done.

      Which I guess casts all the noise, about national security and first-amendment, into intentional red-herrings to smoother the real story.

  • Spinach for Chinese kids ...

    It's not China's fault that TikTok lacks educational videos, that TikTok is available around the clock. Everyone talks about security but strangely don't want laws enforcing safe practices. Instead, politicians bitch and whine that their dishonesty isn't allowed in another country.

    Remember when the USA made a point, of making their empire better than the Russian empire? It's telling, the USA no-longer emphasizes all the things they do well: That's a loss of political/economic/cultural advantage and a

  • Who wrote this shit?

  • Why do I have to learn here that TikTok is banned in China? Can you imagine a US product that is government controlled and _not_ permitted to be sold in the US? What questions would that raise in your mind?

    Why do I learn here that China's permitted TikTok equivalent rations online time? This is a breathtakingly clear example of a government keenly aware of the potentially detrimental effects of a product and taking action on it. Again, imagine a US product that was similarly strictly constrained in its

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close