Interesting because I think that and Spotify Connect are Spotify’s killer features. When I had Spotify (I get Apple Music for no added cost with my Verizon plan), I loved how the playlists really matched what I wanted to listen to - and discovered a few new acts that way. Apple Music doesn’t come close.
My problem is that I’m often trying to learn songs on the bass, so I play some songs over and over on Spotify, and then those songs end up on every playlist.
Anyone comparing TikTok to Instagram, Facebook, YouTube is missing the point. Yes, those private companies capture a ton of data about American citizens, and we need laws which protect us (a separate and important problem). Those companies also share data with US law enforcement and intelligence services which is problematic and probably unconstitutional, another important and concerning problem. TikTok is a completely different animal because of its ties with the Chinese government. Maybe you think they are altruistic, maybe you think they are purely capitalistic, maybe you think the horse is out of the barn, so who cares. Whatever justification you use, you need to acknowledge that from the POV of the US Government, China collecting and using this data about US citizens is inherently different. We have no legal protection there and no law could be enforced which adds protection, that’s fundamentally different than those US companies.
As for what will happen. Almost certainly, TikTok, if what they claim is remotely true, will divest from Bytedance and incorporate as a new independent company headquartered somewhere that is protected from Chinese overreach. The US would be preferred. Regulators would need the authority to audit their data privacy protections and understand what kinds of metadata is being used and shared. If they don’t do this and lose access to the US market, it presents a pretty compelling argument that TikTok is exactly what they are accused of being, an agent of the Chinese intelligence community more interested in penetrating the US, gathering data about citizens, companies and government agents than profits.
I’m sure other platforms will attempt to fill the void if there’s a gap in TikTok’s availability, but that never really works the way it’s promised. IG Stories YT Shorts, whatever, they are just different enough that people reject it. Maybe if we’re as addicted to TikTok as it seems, people will compromise and take any way to feed stupid into their brains.
What I’m seeing right now is mostly people objecting to the actual bills being proposed, saying they are overly broad. There’s fear about use of VPNs violating the law. And there’s concern about there being few actual rules being set up, having them handled by another department. People see it as a backdoor to be able to regulate the Internet.
Oh, and @CRhode, the expectation is that they’d handle this at the ISP level, not allowing the ISPs to connect to the TikTok servers. And that the apps would be delisted from the app stores, since US companies could not do business with them. Sure, there are ways around this, but bans don’t really need to be absolute.
And the current bill everyone is worried about just has a list of countries whose companies they are given leeway to ban, with vague talk about national security concerns. I agree they should have to have detailed rules, but that seems to be what they don’t have.
I haven’t read the proposed bills in detail, and the hearings on the hill were seriously embarrassing for everyone involved. Our elected officials are NOT equipped to handle this kind of regulation, hell, most of these Boomers don’t know how to use a mouse, let alone understand VPNs, machine learning algorithms and metadata. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily reasonable to expect the law to be written in such a way that it explicitly spells out what is and is not allowed/regulated. Laws are often written such that the spirit of the law is clear and the details are left up to the courts and/or the regulators who are for better equipped to implement the policy. GDPR sets some boundaries on what data can be captured and how it’s retained, but it doesn’t describe the implementation. This will probably be shaped similarly.
Pot → Kettle → Black. If we point to the Chinese Communist Party as an example of bad surveillance, can we point to our government as an example of good surveillance?
I don’t grök that at all. Do you suppose any domestic ISPs (with the possible exception of the big Content Delivery Networks — CDNs) have inbound (intake) blacklists?
And, anyway, as you note, the Internet is porous. Although domestic TikTok traffic would practically be eliminated, any sufficiently motivated domestic TikTok user could easily sidestep his ISP’s and Play Store’s restrictions. … and suppose you made that act illegal. You’d add glamour to flouting Federal law but leave little to guide enforcement agencies about how to detect and punish malefactors.
This horse and pussycat have sailed!
Arguably, we have some voice in how much surveillance our government does, and zero over what the CCP does. And, I don’t consider the US Government to be a hostile competitor to US citizens.
Yes, or course, but TikTok thrives because the content creators and users can easily create or consume all the content. If you have to sideload the app, and then use a VPN for all of your phone traffic, viewer and creator numbers will go way, way down and you lose the network effect that’s keeping it dominant.
TikTok creators presumably have some way to monetize their viewership. Once TikTok is banned, getting that income would also be illegal. Which might reduce the creators’ collective interest in creating content for that platform as opposed to some competing non-banned platform.
Stipulated. However, our voice is mostly indirect. The secret nature of the administrative duties of various competing departments renders them collectively barely accountable to the will of the People.
Dang! As usual, I’ve overlooked salients like that one.
Now, I’m wondering whether Constitutionality of a TikTok ban would pass strict scrutiny. It’s almost a “bill of attainder,” innit? That is, it’s directed against certain people in the same way a Congressional death penalty would have to be. As such, it would need to (1) answer a concretely defined threat, (2) be apropos of confronting that threat, and (3) represent the least onerous of all possible solutions. Good luck with that!
A student of mine is firmly convinced that the ban is bc of its use in educating and organizing young people. The government is against that ( and in the GOP’s case I mostly agree).
Bill of attainder seems a bit harsh / overweaning. Try this instead:
it’s illegal to sell drugs. If you sell drugs the profits therefrom are gains of an illegal enterprise and thus subject to forfeiture. If you leave a paper/electron trail of your drug money the government can/will follow that trail to your door. And to your bank’s door.
If you don’t like “drugs” in the example, substitute smuggled goods, bootleg gin, or even “evaded income taxes on ordinary fully-legal business enterprises”
As compared to the government of China?
They won’t hear it. These youths! More seriously, they feel that they are more open minded and progressive because of watching various TikTok videos.
Yes, drugs are bad. TikTok is bad. Profiting from drugs and TikTok is bad. No argument there!
Clamping down on drugs is aimed at drug users, drug dealers, and organized crime.
Who is the target of a TikTok ban? Get the difference?
Those involved with illicit drugs could be anybody but are defined by their behavior. The laws target the behavior, not the people.
TikTok users are identifiable, but their behavior is not the object of the proposed regulation; their membership in an identifiable group is the target because the group may be vulnerable to overseas espionage and blackmail and other clandestine manipulation.
This sort of targeting groups of people — absent a cogent argument why tolerating the adverse consequences of their behavior is bad — is probably unconstitutional by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, which states that, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
[Bills of Attainder] have been defined by the Supreme Court as actions of legislatures (federal or state) that single out a specific individual (or entity), declare that person or entity to be guilty, and impose punishment – all without a court trial.
This is your brain:
This is your brain on Tik-Tok:
The way I use TikTok is similar to what described up-thread. I enjoy scrolling through the shorter videos when I’m on the bus or traveling by air. Like @Banquet_Bear, I also appreciate that the algorithm is mostly great at showing me what I want to see.
When I first started messing around with TikTok, during the start of the pandemic, I wasn’t particularly captivated. It was a decent way to kill free time but it felt like my feed was mostly thirst traps (Urban Dictionary: Thirst Trap) and stupid pranks so I spent a lot of time scrolling between videos that I liked. As I started engaging with the app more it got significantly better and I found more interesting and entertaining creators.
As an elder millennial I never become too attached to the current SM powerhouse. We grew up with AIM and MySpace was dominant in high school before (The)Facebook came in and took over during the first years of college. We’ve seen quite a few programs rise and fall in prominence even if some of them never fully went away.
If TikTok went away tomorrow I wouldn’t really miss much. I already subscribe to podcasts and YouTube channels for the creators that I enjoy the most.
Very few users would actually have a problem, if they were keeping things organized to begin with. (Fat chance, right?) It would significantly improve things for a lot of people who no longer have to worry about avoiding it.
Senate Bill 419 cleared its second reading 60 to 39 with bipartisan support and objection. The legislation now moves to a final vote in the House and if it passes will then head to the desk of Governor Greg Gianforte.
The federal government and state agencies in Montana have already banned TikTok on government devices. SB 419 goes further and extends to personal devices stating that “Tiktok may not operate within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana.” The legislation also prevents the mobile app from being downloaded in the state.
That sounds like a logistical nightmare to enforce.
Possibly.
But the gambling apps (like DraftKings and BetMGM) do this pretty well. Sports gambling is legal in my state of Kansas, but once you cross the border into Missouri, you are prohibited from placing a bet via the gambling app. I would think that TikTok could do the same.
So now Kansas Citians who live in Missouri drive across the state line to place their bets. (And now those KC residents who live in Kansas drive across the state line to legally buy cannabis.)
Is there any realistic chance you’d somehow get caught if you were in MO close to the border?