If your response to boredom is to whip out your phone and scroll endlessly through TikTok, you might be doing it wrong. According to a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, this kind of "digital switching" intensifies boredom rather than relieving it. — Read the rest
The post TikTok is making you bored appeared first on Boing Boing.
Ever scrolled through TikTok and wondered how creators achieve that picture-perfect glow? The secret often lies in the lighting. In the world of TikTok, where every second counts and first impressions matter. So having impeccable lighting can make all the difference between a scroll-past and a viral hit.
It's not just about being seen. It's about being seen in the best light—literally! Now, while many lighting options are available, one tool has emerged as a favorite among TikTokers: the ring light.
This donut-shaped illuminator doesn't just light up your videos; it enhances, accentuates, and elevates your content to professional levels. If you're eager to step up your TikTok game, you're in the right place.
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
IIn this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund, and by our sponsor Discord. In our Bonus Chat at the end of the episode, Mike speaks to Juliet Shen and Camille Francois about the Trust & Safety Tooling Consortium at Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, and the importance of open source tools for trust and safety.
Enlarge (credit: NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto)
The US Department of Justice sued TikTok today, accusing the short-video platform of illegally collecting data on millions of kids and demanding a permanent injunction "to put an end to TikTok’s unlawful massive-scale invasions of children’s privacy."
The DOJ said that TikTok had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule), claiming that TikTok allowed kids "to create and access accounts without their parents’ knowledge or consent," collected "data from those children," and failed to "comply with parents’ requests to delete their children’s accounts and information."
The COPPA Rule requires TikTok to prove that it does not target kids as its primary audience, the DOJ said, and TikTok claims to satisfy that "by requiring users creating accounts to report their birthdates."
Vimm’s Lair, one of the oldest places on the web to find and download classic video game ROMs and emulators, recently announced the removal of many titles due to requests from Sega, Nintendo, Sony, the Entertainment Software Association, and Lego.
The creators behind BASEDPolitics are suing over a measure meant to either ban TikTok or force its divestiture.
President Joe Biden signed the (highly unconstitutional) bill in April, and it already faces several legal challenges, including one filed by TikTok and one filed by eight TikTok content creators. Like those efforts, the BASEDPolitics suit focuses on the law's affront to free speech.
"We wanted to file a lawsuit that was specifically focused on free speech and the First Amendment from the creators' perspective, rather than some of the other, business-related concerns in other lawsuits," Brad Polumbo of BASEDPolitics tells me. "We also wanted to emphasize the political speech aspect, rather than other creators who are more in the mold of everyday 'influencers,' and show that right-leaning/non-liberal voices are being impacted by this as well."
Polumbo hopes the lawsuit will "help Republicans and conservatives see why this ban is inconsistent with the free speech values they say they care about."
BASEDPolitics is a nonprofit media organization run by Polumbo, Hannah Cox, and Jack Hunter. Its goal is to introduce young people "to the ideas of free market capitalism and individual liberty."
TikTok helps them reach audiences they likely wouldn't reach on other platforms, says Cox. "Both Brad and I have large platforms across social media, but TikTok offers a unique audience that can't be found elsewhere," she tells me. "Most on TikTok loathe Meta and X, so if they weren't on TikTok it's unlikely they'd engage meaningfully elsewhere. Their algorithm is also more open, and it enables us to reach many people who would never encounter us otherwise."
There's a popular perception that TikTok either isn't a place for political speech or is an asset only for left-leaning political speakers. But the BASEDPolitics team hasn't found this to be true at all.
"Anyone who thinks TikTok is all just frivolous content is probably not a user," says Polumbo. "There's substantive conversation happening on there on every issue under the sun, from religion to dating to politics." And while "TikTok is dominated by left-leaning content," it's also "a much more politically diverse ecosystem than many might think."
Their suit focuses not just on how a ban would negatively affect BASEDPolitics but on its larger repurcussions for civil liberties.
"We felt the need to stand up as individuals who are using TikTok to effectively fight back against the government and educate others on the principles of free market capitalism, individual rights, and limited government," says Cox, who sees all sorts of "incredible work being done on TikTok—both politically and non politically."
"People are pushing back on war…they're questioning our monetary system, they're highlighting injustices carried out by our government," she says. "Outside of politics, TikTok is now the top search engine for young people. They're getting mental health resources from therapists, DIY help from retired grandpas, nutrition information they can't get from their health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The list is endless."
BASEDPolitics is being represented by the Liberty Justice Center. The suit seeks a declaration that the anti-TikTok law—officially known as the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—is unconstitutional and a block on the U.S. Attorney General enforcing it.
The law makes it illegal for Americans to "access, maintain, or update" apps linked to "foreign adversaries," a category that the measure defines to include TikTok. TikTok will be banned if TikTok parent company ByteDance does not sell it by January 19, 2025. The law also allows the president to declare other apps off limits (or force their sale) if they're based out of any country declared a foreign adversary or if anyone based in these countries owns a fifth or more of the app.
"The Act violates the First Amendment because it bans all speech on TikTok—even though all, or nearly all, of that speech is constitutionally protected," the Liberty Justice Center states in a press release. "The lawsuit also argues that lawmakers' justifications for the ban—national security and protecting Americans from propaganda—cannot justify the infringement on users' First Amendment rights, because there is no evidence that TikTok threatens national security or that a complete ban is necessary to address whatever threat it might pose. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues, the First Amendment does not allow the government to suppress 'propaganda,' which is simply speech."
Cox elaborates on this point in a video about the lawsuit, noting that people act like TikTok is unique because it could be linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Yet "you have tons of state-owned media that is available in the U.S.," points out Cox, citing the BBC and Russia today as two examples.
In the U.S., we don't ban speech merely because another government—even one we find alarming—might endorse it. So even if some of the more speculative fears about China and TikTok are true, that should be no reason to ban it entirely.
Cox says this sort of thing is more befitting of "communist dystopias" such as North Korea.
There's been some (overhyped) concern about TikTok suppressing content that could offend Chinese authorities. But even if that's true, it wouldn't justify a ban either.
"As First Amendment supporters, we also support the legal right of TikTok as a private platform to ban or restrict whatever kinds of content it wants even if we personally resent their choices or think it's unfair," Polumbo adds.
"If enacted, this would constitute one of the most egregious acts of censorship in modern American history," Cox and Polumbo write, placing the TikTok ban in the midst of larger anti-speech and anti-tech trends:
In the federal and state governments, both Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly anti-free speech in recent years. We've seen a plethora of bills that have sought to strip Americans and their businesses of their right to free expression, many of them presented as necessary to rein in "Big Tech." The TikTok ban is merely the latest iteration of this trend.
The truth is that government actors who want to preserve and expand their own power have a vital interest in taking over the tech industry. Of course the government has yet to see a thriving free market industry it doesn't want to get its hands on. But social media in particular poses a unique threat to the government—which has for decades been able to control the flow of information and the narrative on political issues via its cozy relationship with many in the mainstream media.
We've seen the Biden Administration seek to lasso social media in a similar fashion numerous times over the past couple of years thanks to the bombshell reports released under both the Twitter Files and the Facebook Files—not to mention the government-wide conspiracy to shadowban information on our own government's funding of the Wuhan lab….
The obvious point is that government officials do not want the American people to be able to freely share information, especially information that makes them look bad.
The bottom line, they suggest, is that "if they can control the flow of information, they can control you."
"Social media poses a unique threat to politicians and the government, and that's because for decades…the government could control the narrative, and they could control the narrative because they mostly control the mainstream media," says Cox in her video. "As social media has grown, they have lost more and more control of the narrative, because they are no longer the gatekeepers, and they don't control the gatekeepers anymore."
"Ultimately the war on Big Tech is a war on free speech and the government desperately trying to regain control of the narrative the [mainstream media] granted them for decades," she tells me.
The BASEDPolitics team also pushes back on the idea that this isn't really a ban because it gives ByteDance the option to sell. "In effect, the legislation is an outright ban on the app, because Bytedance, TikTok's parent company, is likely legally prohibited from selling the TikTok algorithm by China's export control laws," write Cox and Polumbo. "And, TikTok without its algorithm is not really TikTok at all."
You can read their full complaint here.
• Supreme Court decisions are coming soon—possibly this week—in two major cases concerning abortion. One of these cases prescriptions of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone amd another concerns a Biden administration declaration regarding abortions as emergency care.
• Kaytlin Bailey and Yasmin Vafa debate whether it's OK to pay for sex.
• Antitrust warriors come for AI: The Federal Trade Commission is subpoenaing Microsoft over its deal with the artificial intelligence startup Inflection. Meanwhile, the Justice Departments "is poised to investigate Nvidia and its leading position in supplying the high-end semiconductors underpinning AI computing," Politico reports.
• "When a new technology arises, it matters greatly whether technocrats align themselves with dynamists or with reactionaries," Virginia Postrel tells Miller's Book Review. "We were lucky in the 1990s that both political parties included people with positive views of the emerging internet, including people with a dynamist understanding of its potential. The opposite is true today. Reactionaries are in ascendance in both parties, and technocrats are listening to them. Plus there are always businesses seeking to use regulation to hinder their competitors. The result is that instead of regarding AI as an exciting potential tool for enhancing human creativity and fostering prosperity, our public discourse tends to frame it as at best a job-destroyer and at worst the Terminator."
• A federal judge has rejected North Carolina's attempt to mandate that abortion pills must be taken in a doctor's office and that their prescription requires an in-person followup visit 72 hours after the medication is taken. The ruling means that women "can again take the medicine mifepristone at home and can obtain the medication from a pharmacy or by mail," WUNC reports.
• "Because 'misinformation' is overwhelmingly identified by focusing on information that contradicts the consensus judgements of experts and elites within society's leading knowledge-generating institutions, the focus on misinformation ignores how such institutions can themselves be deeply dysfunctional and problematic," writes Dan Williams in a very good (and lengthy) post at Conspicuous Cognition. "This includes science, intelligence agencies, mainstream media, and so on."
The post 'If They Can Control the Flow of Information, They Can Control You': BASEDPolitics Sues To Stop TikTok Ban appeared first on Reason.com.
A new report claims that TikTok is working to create an independent clone of its source code in an attempt to stay in the US. However, TikTok is denying the report, calling it “misleading” and “factually inaccurate.”
Back in April, a bill was passed and signed into law that requires Beijing-based parent company ByteDance to divest its ownership stake in TikTok to keep the short-form video platform in the US. The bill stems from bipartisan concerns about TikTok’s connection to China and the platform’s influence on its users. To stay in the US without having to sell its business, TikTok has been exploring ways to appease US lawmakers.
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
Enlarge (credit: Future Publishing / Contributor | Future Publishing)
TikTok is now disputing a Reuters report that claims the short-video app is cloning its algorithm to potentially offer a different version of the app, which might degrade over time, just for US users.
Sources "with direct knowledge" of the project—granted anonymity because they're not authorized to discuss it publicly—told Reuters that the TikTok effort began late last year. They said that the project will likely take a year to complete, requiring hundreds of engineers to separate millions of lines of code.
As these sources reported, TikTok's tremendous undertaking could potentially help prepare its China-based owner ByteDance to appease US lawmakers who passed a law in April forcing TikTok to sell its US-based operations by January 19 or face a ban. But TikTok has maintained that the "qualified divestiture" required by the law would be impossible, and on Thursday, TikTok denied the accuracy of Reuters' report while reiterating its stance that a sale is not in the cards.
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
Modern games get patched all the time, and there are few things more low-key annoying than sitting down to dig into a meaty RPG or hop into a quick deathmatch only to see you’ve got to download an 8GB update. You start scrolling TikTok or dropping memes in the group chat and by the time you realize the game’s finally…
A social media app from China is said to seduce our teenagers in ways that American platforms can only dream of. Gen Z has already wasted half a young lifetime on videos of pranks, makeup tutorials, and babies dubbed to talk like old men. Now computer sorcerers employed by a hostile government allegedly have worse in store. Prohibit this "digital fentanyl," the argument goes, or the Republic may be lost.
And so President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024, which requires the China-based company ByteDance to either spin-off TikTok or watch it be banned. Separating the company from the app would supposedly solve the other problem frequently blamed on TikTok: the circle linking U.S. users' personal data to the Chinese Communist Party. The loop has already been cut, TikTok argues, because American users' data are now stored with Oracle in Texas. That's about as believable as those TikTok baby talk vignettes, retorts Congress.
If Congress has got the goods on the Communists, do tell! Those Homeland Security threat assessment color charts from the 2000s are tan, rested, and ready. But slapping a shutdown on a company because of mere rumors—that really is an ugly import from China.
The people pushing for TikTok regulation argue that the app's problems go far further than the challenges raised when kids burn their brains on Snap, Insta/Facebook, Twitter/X, Pinterest, YouTube/Google, and the rest of the big blue Internet. In The Music Man, Henry Hill swept a placid town into frenzy with his zippy rendition of the darkness that might lurk in an amusement parlor. Today we're told that TikTok is foreign-owned and addictive, that its algorithms may favor anti-American themes, and that it makes U.S. users sitting ducks for backdoor data heists.
Though the bill outlaws U.S. access to TikTok if ByteDance cannot assign the platform to a non-Chinese enterprise within 9–12 months (which the company says it will not do), prediction markets give the ban only a 24 percent chance of kicking in by May 2025. Those low odds reflect, in part, the high probability that the law will be found unconstitutional. ByteDance has already filed suit. It is supported by the fact that First Amendment rights extend to speakers of foreign origin, as U.S. courts have repeatedly explained.
The Qatar-based Al Jazeera bought an entire American cable channel, Current TV—part owner Al Gore pocketed $100 million for the sale in 2013—to bring its slant to 60 million U.S. households. Free speech reigned and the market ruled: Al Jazeera got only a tiny audience share and exited just a few years later.
Writing in The Free Press, Rep. Michael Gallagher (R–Wisc.)—co-sponsor of the TikTok bill—claims that because the Chinese Communist Party allegedly "uses TikTok to push its propaganda and censor views," the United States must move to block. This endorsement of the Chinese "governing system" evinces no awareness of the beauty of our own. We can combat propaganda with our free press (including The Free Press). Of greatest help is that the congressman singles out the odious views that the Chinese potentates push: on Tiananmen, Muslims, LGBTQ issues, Tibet, and elsewise.
Our federal jurists will do well to focus on Gallagher's opening salvo versus TikTok: "A growing number of Americans rely on it for their news. Today, TikTok is the top search engine for more than half of Gen Z." This underscores the fact that his new rules are not intended to be "content neutral."
Rather than shouting about potential threats, TikTok's foes should report any actual mendacities or violations of trust. Where criminal—as with illicitly appropriating users' data—such misbehavior should be prosecuted by the authorities. Yet here the National Security mavens have often gone AWOL.
New York Times reporter David Sanger, in The Perfect Weapon (2018), provides spectacular context. In about the summer of 2014, U.S. intelligence found that a large state actor—presumed by officials to be China—had hacked U.S.-based servers and stolen data for 22 million current and former U.S. government employees. More than 4 million of these victims lost highly personal information, including Social Security numbers, medical records, fingerprints, and security background checks. The U.S. database had been left unencrypted. It was a flaw so sensational that, when the theft was finally discovered, it was noticed that the exiting data was (oddly) encrypted, an upgrade the hackers had conscientiously supplied so as to carry out their burgle with stealth.
Here's the killer: Sanger reports that "the administration never leveled with the 22 million Americans whose data were lost—except by accident." The victims simply got a note that "some of their information might have been lost" and were offered credit-monitoring subscriptions. This was itself a bit of a ruse; the hack was identified as a hostile intelligence operation because the lifted data was not being sold on the Dark Web.
Hence, a vast number of U.S. citizens—including undercover agents—have presumably been compromised by China. This has ended careers, and continues to threaten victims, without compensation or even real disclosure.
The accidental government acknowledgment came in a slip of the tongue by National Security Chief James Clapper: "You kind of have to salute the Chinese for what they did." At a 2016 hearing just weeks later, Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.) drilled Clapper on the breach, demanding to know why the attack had gone unreported. Clapper's answer? "Because people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks." An outraged McCain could scarcely believe it. "So it's OK for them to steal our secrets that are most important, because we live in a glass house. That is astounding."
While keeping the American public in the dark about real breaches, U.S. officials raise the specter of a potential breach to trample free speech. The TikTok ban is Fool's Gold. The First Amendment is pure genius. Let's keep one of them.
The post TikTok's Got Trouble appeared first on Reason.com.
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”
That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.
Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.
Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.
Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.
We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?
Yeah, you know where this is going.
NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).
On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:
I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:
TikTok is missing.
Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:
“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.
I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.
Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:
“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”
Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.
Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:
Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes
Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?
This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”
Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.
It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”
That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.
Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.
Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.
Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.
We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?
Yeah, you know where this is going.
NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).
On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:
I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:
TikTok is missing.
Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:
“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.
I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.
Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:
“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”
Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.
Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:
Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes
Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?
This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”
Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.
It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”
That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.
Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.
Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.
Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.
We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?
Yeah, you know where this is going.
NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).
On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:
I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:
TikTok is missing.
Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:
“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.
I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.
Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:
“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”
Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.
Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:
Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes
Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?
This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”
Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.
It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.
TikTok has been having a rough go as of late. Just last week, President Joe Biden signed a bill to force ByteDance to sell the video-sharing platform or be banned in the US. Now the European Commission is floating around the idea on banning the iOS and Android app in the EU.
Politico reports that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said “It is not excluded” during a debate for the Commission’s 2024 election. This was in response to a question from a moderator referencing the looming TikTok ban in the US.
TikTok has been one of the most popular apps in the world for nearly half a decade now. It has fundamentally reshaped the way millions of people consume content on the web, but all of that attention has (rightfully) also warranted concern from officials. In some countries, such as India, TikTok has already been banned for years.
Now, things have finally come to a head, with the United States House of Representatives finally passing a bill to force TikTok to sell or shut down in the US. If you haven’t been following the whole story, we’ve broken down everything you need to know about the TikTok ban, the reasons behind it, and the full timeline so far.
TikTok is now one step closer to facing a ban in the US if parent company ByteDance chooses not to divest its ownership stake. The ban could take effect as soon as in the next few days.
Despite massive lobbying efforts to keep TikTok in the US, the House of Representatives passed legislation today that would ban the app in the country, according to NBC News. The bill passed after 360 representatives voted in favor of the ban, with 58 saying no.
Now that the bill has passed the House once again, it will need approval from the Senate and the President to become law. It will arrive on the Senate floor next week as part of a crucial aid package for Ukraine and Israel. The measure is expected to pass, with President Joe Biden expected to sign it as soon as it reaches his desk.
This ban measure stems from bipartisan concerns about TikTok’s connection to China. There’s a fear that China could use the app to spread propaganda to the US audience. In addition, there are concerns about the massive amounts of data being collected on the millions of American users.
If the bill becomes law, ByteDance will have two options: sell TikTok or end its presence in the US. It’s likely ByteDance will exhaust all of its options before considering divesture.
I’ve mentioned more than a few times how the singular hyperventilation about TikTok is kind of silly distraction from the fact that the United States is too corrupt to pass a modern privacy law, resulting in no limit of dodgy behavior, abuse, and scandal. We have no real standards thanks to corruption, and most people have no real idea of the scale of the dysfunction.
Case in point: a new study out of the University of Pennsylvania (hat tip to The Register) analyzed a nationally representative sample of 100 U.S. hospitals, and found that 96 percent of them were doling out sensitive user visitor data to Google, Meta, and a vast coalition of dodgy data brokers.
Hospitals, it should be clear, aren’t legally required to publish website privacy policies that clearly detail how and with whom they share visitor data. Again, because we’re too corrupt as a country to require and enforce such requirements. The FTC does have some jurisdiction, but it’s too short staffed and under-funded (quite intentionally) to tackle the real scope of U.S. online privacy violations.
So the study found that a chunk of these hospital websites didn’t even have a privacy policy. And of the ones that did, about half the time the over-verbose pile of ambiguous and intentionally confusing legalese didn’t really inform visitors that their data was being transferred to a long list of third parties. Or, for that matter, who those third-parties even are:
“…we found that although 96.0% of hospital websites exposed users to third-party tracking, only 71.0% of websites had an available website privacy policy…Only 56.3% of policies (and only 40 hospitals overall) identified specific third-party recipients.”
Data in this instance can involve everything including email and IP addresses, to what you clicked on, what you researched, demographic info, and location. This was all a slight improvement from a study they did a year earlier showing that 98 percent of hospital websites shared sensitive data with third parties. The professors clearly knew what to expect, but were still disgusted in comments to The Register:
“It’s shocking, and really kind of incomprehensible,” said Dr Ari Friedman, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. “People have cared about health privacy for a really, really, really long time.” It’s very fundamental to human nature. Even if it’s information that you would have shared with people, there’s still a loss, just an intrinsic loss, when you don’t even have control over who you share that information with.”
If this data is getting into the hands of dodgy international and unregulated data brokers, there’s no limit of places it can end up. Brokers collect a huge array of demographic, behavioral, and location data, use it to create detailed profiles of individuals, then sell access in a million different ways to a long line of additional third parties, including the U.S. government and foreign intelligence agencies.
There should be hard requirements about transparent, clear, and concise notifications of exactly what data is being collected and sold and to whom. There should be hard requirements that users have the ability to opt out (or, preferably in the cases of sensitive info, opt in). There should be hard punishment for companies and executives that play fast and loose with consumer data.
And we have none of that because our lawmakers decided, repeatedly, that making money was more important than market health, consumer welfare, and public safety. The result has been a parade of scandals that skirt ever closer to people being killed, at scale.
So again, the kind of people that whine about the singular privacy threat that is TikTok (like say FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, or Senator Marsha Blackburn) — but have nothing to say about the much broader dysfunction created by rampant corruption — are advertising they either don’t know what they’re talking about, or aren’t addressing the full scope of the problem in good faith.
Apparently, the TikTok ban bill is back.
Speaker Mike Johnson plans to include TikTok divestiture legislation already passed by the House in a fast-moving aid package for Ukraine and Israel that the chamber is set to clear on Saturday. The Senate is expected to quickly take up the measure, and President Joe Biden promised Wednesday to sign it immediately.
If signed into law, the bill would deliver a significant blow to a video-sharing app used by as many as 170 million Americans. Its enactment would also mark a major setback to the company’s intense lobbying efforts, especially by Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew, who made the rounds on Capitol Hill last month in a bid to get the Senate to squelch the legislation.
I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it. We’ve also discussed how those most vocally pushing for the TikTok ban appear to be financially conflicted.
But, even more important than all that, is that a TikTok ban would be a disaster for the open web. Yes, other countries have banned apps, but they tend to be authoritarian countries that have never liked and never supported an open web.
Banning an entire app in the US would be a massive attack on the very concept of an open web. And that’s really unfortunate, given that the US used to be the world’s most vocal supporter of the web being kept open and free.
The New York Times recently had a good article calling out what a disaster the ban would be for the open web.
Digital rights groups and others around the world have taken notice — and raised the question of how the moves against TikTok contradict the United States’ arguments in favor of an open internet.
A Russian opposition blogger, Aleksandr Gorbunov, posted on social media last month that Russia could use the move to shut down services like YouTube. And digital rights advocates globally are expressing fears of a ripple effect, with the United States providing cover for authoritarians who want to censor the internet.
In March, the Chinese government, which controls its country’s internet, said America had “one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries,” citing the TikTok legislation.
Passing the TikTok ban would effectively be telling the world (1) it’s totally okay to ban apps you don’t like, and (2) the U.S. long-standing commitment to the open web was always fake and always bullshit, because the second a successful foreign app came along, we tossed out those principles.
“It would diminish the U.S.’s standing in promoting internet freedom,” said Juan Carlos Lara, the executive director of Derechos Digitales, a Latin American digital rights group based in Chile. “It would definitely not bolster its own case for promoting a free and secure, stable and interoperable internet.”
And that signal will be heard loud and clear around the world:
Mishi Choudhary, a lawyer who founded the New Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Center, said the Indian government would also use a U.S. ban to justify further crackdowns. It has already engaged in internet shutdowns, she said, and it banned TikTok in 2020 over border conflicts with China.
“This gives them good reason to find confidence in their past actions, but also emboldens them to take similar future actions,” she said in an interview.
Mr. Lara of Derechos Digitales noted that countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua had already passed laws that gave the government more control over online content. He said increased government control of the internet was a “tempting idea” that “really risks materializing if such a thing is seen in places like the U.S.”
A forced sale or ban of TikTok could also make it harder for the American government to ask other countries to embrace an internet governed by international organizations, digital rights experts said.
And, if the goal here is to hurt China in particular, that may backfire massively:
Patrick Toomey, the deputy director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the TikTok measure became law, the “hypocrisy would be inescapable and the dividends to China enormous.”
China has long made a big deal whenever the US government is hypocritical like this. This would be a huge PR win for the Chinese government. It would allow it to claim that its Great Firewall approach to the internet is right, and that the US was admitting that openness and an open internet fails. It would allow China to call out US hypocrisy, and that matters a lot at this moment when China is working hard to build stronger relationships with lots of countries around the globe.
Banning TikTok won’t help the US against China. It will play right into China’s hands. It doesn’t need TikTok to get data on Americans, nor to try to influence Americans. But, destroying decades of US foreign policy promoting an open and free internet serves China’s interests massively.
Enlarge (credit: Sheldon Coope | SOPA Images | LightRocket | Getty Images)
TikTok is gearing up for a long legal battle to fight legislation in the US that threatens to ban the app in its largest market if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, refuses to sell the viral video platform.
The US House of Representatives on Saturday passed a package of national security bills that included legislation that would result in TikTok being banned in the country if Chinese parent company ByteDance does not divest the app.
Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s public policy head in the US, told staff in response that if the bill became law, the company would “move to the courts for a legal challenge.”
Is TikTok's time finally up? On Saturday, the House of Representatives passed a measure that would require a change in the app's ownership or ban it if that doesn't happen.
Called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, it's essentially the same divestiture-or-ban bill I wrote about in this newsletter back in March, now tucked into a larger bill (H.R. 8038, the insanely named 21st Century Peace through Strength Act) that deals with everything from fentanyl trafficking to Russian sanctions, Iranian petroleum, Hamas, and boatloads of foreign aid.
The most talked-about part of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act would ban TikTok unless it completely breaks ties with its Chinese parent-company, ByteDance, within 270 days.
But the bill goes far beyond TikTok, and could be used to justify a ban on all sorts of popular apps tied to China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that gets deemed a foreign adversary.
Specifically, the bill makes it illegal "to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application." And the bill's definition of "foreign adversary controlled application" is really broad.
It specifically defines TikTok, ByteDance, and subsidiaries or successors thereof as foreign adversary controlled applications.
The definition would also apply to an array of websites, apps, and "augmented or immersive technology" (with a focus on large social media entities), if they are headquartered in, principally based in, or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country or if any person or entity with at least a 20 percent stake is based there.
And it would grant the president broad power to determine who meets this bill, opening the measure up for all sorts of potential abuse.
There are multiple ways in which this legislation likely violates the Constitution.
The most obvious constitutional problem is the First Amendment. The bill suppresses the free speech rights of Americans who post to TikTok and of those who consume TIkTok content.
It may also amount to a bill of attainder—a law punishing a specific person or entity, without a trial—and those are unconstitutional.
And it may also violate the 5th Amendment, as Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) noted in a Reason article last week.
Paul thinks the Supreme Court "will ultimately rule it unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves," and "rule that the forced sale violates the Fifth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime—in short, without due process. Since Americans are part of TikTok's ownership, they will eventually get their day in court."
Paul's point brings up an important—and often overlooked—factor in all of this: No one has produced evidence of any specific legal infractions committed by TikTok, let alone proven such offenses took place. There's a ton of speculation about what TikTok could be doing, but that's it. A lot of people seem sure that TikTok is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party and you're a fool if you think otherwise. And maybe it is! But that still doesn't mean we can simply sanction the company with no due process, as Paul points out.
Speculation about what the app's ties to China mean may be a good reason for certain people to approach TikTok with caution. But they cannot justify legal action against TikTok.
• The coddling of the American parent: "Jonathan Haidt's new book…blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that's easy, wrong, and dangerous," Mike Masnick writes in The Daily Beast.
• Colorado activists failed to collect enough signatures to get an anti-abortion constitutional amendment on the state's ballot this fall.
• Laura LeMoon writes about fighting financial discrimination against sex workers.
The post TikTok Measure Passed by House Is Unconstitutional in Multiple Ways appeared first on Reason.com.
Banning TikTok for real this time: On Saturday, the House passed bills that will send large sums of aid to Israel ($26 billion), Ukraine ($60 billion), and Taiwan ($8 billion), as well as a long-gestating measure to force the divestiture of the video app TikTok.
Now the legislation will need to be approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden.
The TikTok ban will probably be challenged. "This is an unprecedented deal worked out between the Republican Speaker and President Biden," declared Michael Beckerman, TikTok's head of public policy, in a memo to the company's American staff. "At the stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge."
China's internet regulator/censor, the Cyberspace Administration, has taken note of the movement on the TikTok bill, which would either ban the Chinese-owned company from operating in the U.S. or force sale of the app to an American owner within a tight timeframe. Forcing divestiture presents a few problems, namely that the proprietary algorithm and source code would likely fail to convey with the purchase, making the app…practically useless.
Not to be outdone by American lawmakers, China's government on Friday ordered that the Meta-owned WhatsApp and Threads be pulled from Apple's app store over "national security concerns" (of course). "A person briefed on the situation said the Chinese government had found content on WhatsApp and Threads about China's president, Xi Jinping, that was inflammatory and violated the country's cybersecurity laws," reports The New York Times. WhatsApp is used minimally compared to WeChat (owned by Chinese company Tencent). But for Apple—which anticipated this to some degree, and already started shifting its supply chain overseas after having been quite conciliatory to the Chinese Communist Party for many years—to be caught in the crosshairs is a harbinger of more to come.
This type of justification can always be found if one looks hard enough—and China's censors certainly do. But beware the coming internet wars, and the use of the American TikTok ban as justification for all manner of crackdowns.
Free and open internet? "A Russian opposition blogger, Aleksandr Gorbunov, posted on social media last month that Russia could use the move to shut down services like YouTube," argues The New York Times' David McCabe. "I don't think the obvious thing needs to be stated out loud, which is that when Russia blocks YouTube, they'll justify it with precisely this decision of the United States," said Gorbunov.
Xi's regime in China and Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia, of course, feel quite comfortable taking whatever cheap shots they can at U.S. lawmakers; if they want to crack down on internet freedoms, they can and will, no excuse necessary. But the TikTok bill is certainly escalatory, and it undermines America's longstanding rhetorical commitment to a free and open internet—or the internet as a "global free-trade zone," in the words of former President Bill Clinton.
Scenes from New York: Today is my birthday! And on Saturday, I went out with friends (including a grand total of three babies, who were shockingly well-behaved) to eat crab in Chinatown. After that we went to an event in a basement on East Broadway where the books attempted to teach my toddler that rules are for breaking! Marginally better than Ibram X. Kendi's children's books, but not by much.
In response to "horrific" scenes of antisemitic harassment at and around campus, the Orthodox Rabbi at Columbia/Barnard sent a WhatsApp message to more than 290+ Jewish students this morning recommending that they go home until it's safe again for them on campus: pic.twitter.com/uqAntEICLv
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 21, 2024
Scientific American doesn't cover the Cass Review -- "cass report" and "cass review" net zero Google hits -- but instead, the week after its release, it publishes an interview with an activist who believes kids should have full medical automony and that interpreting scientific… https://t.co/C7C19zxYKT
— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) April 21, 2024
The post China's Retribution appeared first on Reason.com.
TikTok is now one step closer to facing a ban in the US if parent company ByteDance chooses not to divest its ownership stake. The ban could take effect as soon as in the next few days.
Despite massive lobbying efforts to keep TikTok in the US, the House of Representatives passed legislation today that would ban the app in the country, according to NBC News. The bill passed after 360 representatives voted in favor of the ban, with 58 saying no.
Following weeks of rumors and speculation, TikTok Notes is finally available to select Android and iOS users. The new app from TikTok aims to compete with Instagram by offering a dedicated space for sharing still shots. Those interested in trying out TikTok Notes can now sign up for the service using their existing TikTok accounts.
While the company has yet to officially announce TikTok Notes’ availability, we’ve confirmed that it’s now rolling out on the Canadian Google Play and Apple App Stores.
Interestingly, at the time of writing, the application is still unavailable in the US. This gradual rollout doesn’t surprise us, as the app has just launched, and TikTok may want to collect user feedback before expanding globally.
In terms of functionality, TikTok Notes expectedly revolves around sharing photos, while the main app maintains its focus on short videos. Unlike Instagram, TikTok Notes’ feed features a grid that enables users to glance at multiple posts at once. Expectedly, you can then click on an individual post to view it in full-screen mode and read or leave comments.
Otherwise, the app shares some similarities with Instagram, such as support for photo carousels, chronological and algorithmic feeds, comment controls, and more.
To download TikTok Notes on your mobile device, you can head to the official website, which — depending on your OS — will redirect you to the respective app marketplace. Alternatively, you can directly view the app’s listing on the Google Play Store and Apple App Store using the provided links.
Apparently, the TikTok ban bill is back.
Speaker Mike Johnson plans to include TikTok divestiture legislation already passed by the House in a fast-moving aid package for Ukraine and Israel that the chamber is set to clear on Saturday. The Senate is expected to quickly take up the measure, and President Joe Biden promised Wednesday to sign it immediately.
If signed into law, the bill would deliver a significant blow to a video-sharing app used by as many as 170 million Americans. Its enactment would also mark a major setback to the company’s intense lobbying efforts, especially by Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew, who made the rounds on Capitol Hill last month in a bid to get the Senate to squelch the legislation.
I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it. We’ve also discussed how those most vocally pushing for the TikTok ban appear to be financially conflicted.
But, even more important than all that, is that a TikTok ban would be a disaster for the open web. Yes, other countries have banned apps, but they tend to be authoritarian countries that have never liked and never supported an open web.
Banning an entire app in the US would be a massive attack on the very concept of an open web. And that’s really unfortunate, given that the US used to be the world’s most vocal supporter of the web being kept open and free.
The New York Times recently had a good article calling out what a disaster the ban would be for the open web.
Digital rights groups and others around the world have taken notice — and raised the question of how the moves against TikTok contradict the United States’ arguments in favor of an open internet.
A Russian opposition blogger, Aleksandr Gorbunov, posted on social media last month that Russia could use the move to shut down services like YouTube. And digital rights advocates globally are expressing fears of a ripple effect, with the United States providing cover for authoritarians who want to censor the internet.
In March, the Chinese government, which controls its country’s internet, said America had “one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries,” citing the TikTok legislation.
Passing the TikTok ban would effectively be telling the world (1) it’s totally okay to ban apps you don’t like, and (2) the U.S. long-standing commitment to the open web was always fake and always bullshit, because the second a successful foreign app came along, we tossed out those principles.
“It would diminish the U.S.’s standing in promoting internet freedom,” said Juan Carlos Lara, the executive director of Derechos Digitales, a Latin American digital rights group based in Chile. “It would definitely not bolster its own case for promoting a free and secure, stable and interoperable internet.”
And that signal will be heard loud and clear around the world:
Mishi Choudhary, a lawyer who founded the New Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Center, said the Indian government would also use a U.S. ban to justify further crackdowns. It has already engaged in internet shutdowns, she said, and it banned TikTok in 2020 over border conflicts with China.
“This gives them good reason to find confidence in their past actions, but also emboldens them to take similar future actions,” she said in an interview.
Mr. Lara of Derechos Digitales noted that countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua had already passed laws that gave the government more control over online content. He said increased government control of the internet was a “tempting idea” that “really risks materializing if such a thing is seen in places like the U.S.”
A forced sale or ban of TikTok could also make it harder for the American government to ask other countries to embrace an internet governed by international organizations, digital rights experts said.
And, if the goal here is to hurt China in particular, that may backfire massively:
Patrick Toomey, the deputy director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the TikTok measure became law, the “hypocrisy would be inescapable and the dividends to China enormous.”
China has long made a big deal whenever the US government is hypocritical like this. This would be a huge PR win for the Chinese government. It would allow it to claim that its Great Firewall approach to the internet is right, and that the US was admitting that openness and an open internet fails. It would allow China to call out US hypocrisy, and that matters a lot at this moment when China is working hard to build stronger relationships with lots of countries around the globe.
Banning TikTok won’t help the US against China. It will play right into China’s hands. It doesn’t need TikTok to get data on Americans, nor to try to influence Americans. But, destroying decades of US foreign policy promoting an open and free internet serves China’s interests massively.
The censors who abound in Congress will likely vote to ban TikTok or force a change in ownership. It will likely soon be law. I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule it unconstitutional, because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves.
In addition, I believe the Court will rule that the forced sale violates the Fifth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime—in short, without due process. Since Americans are part of TikTok's ownership, they will eventually get their day in court.
The Court could also conclude that naming and forcing the sale of a specific company amounts to a bill of attainder, legislation that targets a single entity.
These are three significant constitutional arguments against Congress' forced sale/ban legislation. In fact, three different federal courts have already invalidated legislative and executive attempts to ban TikTok.
If the damage to one company weren't enough, there is a very real danger this ham-fisted assault on TikTok may actually give the government the power to force the sale of other companies.
Take, for example, Apple. As The New York Times reported in 2021, "In response to a 2017 Chinese law, Apple agreed to move its Chinese customers' data to China and onto computers owned and run by a Chinese state-owned company."
Sound familiar? The legislators who want to censor and/or ban TikTok point to this same law to argue that TikTok could (someday) be commanded to turn over American users' data to the Chinese government.
Note that more careful speakers don't allege that this has happened, but rather that it might. The banners of TikTok don't want to be troubled by anything inconvenient like proving in a court of law that this is occurring. No, the allegation is enough for them to believe they have the right to force the sale of or ban TikTok.
But back to Apple. It's not theoretical that it might turn over data to the Chinese Communist government. It already has (albeit, Chinese users' information). Nevertheless, it could be argued that Apple, by their actions, could fall under the TikTok ban language that forces the sale of an entity: under the influence of a foreign adversary.
(Now, of course, I think such legislation is absurdly wrong and would never want it applied to Apple, but I worry the language is vague enough to apply to many entities.)
As The New York Times explains: "Chinese government workers physically control and operate the data center. Apple agreed to store the digital keys that unlock its Chinese customers' information in those data centers. And Apple abandoned the encryption technology it uses in other data centers after China wouldn't allow it."
This sounds exactly like what the TikTok censors describe in their bill, except so far as we know, only Americans who live in China might be affected by Apple's adherence to China's law. TikTok actually has spent a billion dollars agreeing to house all American data with Oracle in Texas.
Are there other companies that might be affected by the TikTok ban? Commentary by Kash Patel in The Washington Times argues that Temu, an online marketplace operated by a Chinese company, is even worse than TikTok and should be banned. He makes the argument that Temu, in contrast with TikTok, "does not employ any data security personnel in the United States."
And what of the global publishing enterprise Springer Nature? It has admitted that it censors its scientific articles at the request of the Chinese Communist government. Will the TikTok bill force its sale as well?
Before Congress rushes to begin banning and punishing every international company that does business in China, perhaps they should pause, take a breath, and ponder the ramifications of rapid, legislative isolationism with regard to China.
The impulse to populism is giving birth to the abandonment of international trade. I fear, in the hysteria of the moment, that ending trade between China and the U.S. will not only cost American consumers dearly but ultimately lead to more tension and perhaps even war.
No one in Congress has more strongly condemned the historical famines and genocides of Communist China. I wrote a book, The Case Against Socialism, describing the horrors and inevitability of state-sponsored violence in the pursuit of complete socialism. I just recently wrote another book called Deception, condemning Communist China for covering up the Wuhan lab origins of COVID-19.
And yet, even with those searing critiques, I believe the isolationism of the China hysterics is a mistake and will not end well if Congress insists on going down this path.
The post If They Ban TikTok, Is Apple Next? appeared first on Reason.com.
Flooding Congress with phone calls can work wonders to stop bad bills at times. The SOPA blackout 12 years ago was one of the most effective advocacy campaigns in history. Coincidentally, I was at the Capitol that day, and wandering the halls between meetings, hearing phones ringing non-stop was amazing.
However, that process was carefully planned out over weeks, with sites pushing a very clear message of why internet users should call Congress and complain about the terrible copyright laws that were being pushed.
It appears that TikTok may have taken the wrong lesson from all that and assumed that simply flooding Congress with calls is an effective strategy. It can be, but you have to equip callers with a basic understanding of what it is that they’re calling for and why. And maybe it doesn’t make sense to do it on a bill built off the (mostly false) belief that your app is controlling the minds of gullible American voters.
On Thursday, TikTok put up a pop-up on all US users’ screens when they went to get their daily fill of random videos:
“Stop a TikTok shutdown!” it yells, claiming that “Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok. Speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.”
The bill in question is stupid. It’s a fear-mongering (bipartisan) bunch of grandstanding nonsense. It doesn’t technically “ban” TikTok, but would directly require ByteDance to divest its ownership in the company. If ByteDance does not do so, then it is a ban (despite the bill’s sponsors insisting it’s not). It does seem like a pretty clear bill of attainder, targeting a single company, TikTok, out of yet another fear-mongering moral panic that a successful internet company coming out of China must be evil.
As we’ve been saying for years now, if the fear is about the privacy of American users of the platform, Congress could pass a comprehensive privacy bill. They just choose not to do so. Instead, they play up a silly culture war, which will only lead to even more retribution for American apps outside the US. Indeed, expect to see other countries passing similar bills demanding that US companies divest from successful apps in their countries, as a result of this stupid bill.
And, on top of that, the bill is almost certainly a First Amendment violation, as has been found during previous attempts to effectively ban TikTok, none of which have gone well in court.
TikTok’s gambit apparently worked in terms of getting people to call. But it didn’t always effectively get the message out:
TikTok users flooded some congressional offices with dozens of calls. Results were mixed: Some staffers dismissed the callers as uninformed, or as pranksters, or as “teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app.”
And, look, when you have a bunch of overly anxious politicians who think that TikTok is like Chinese mind control over American brains (it’s not, but that’s what they seem to think), it’s not difficult to see how telling TikTok users to call Congress could drive those politicians to think this is even more evidence of why the bill is needed, especially when there is a flood of calls from unsophisticated constituents talking about how they “spend their whole day on the app.”
And that seems to have been the case.
House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said if anything, TikTok’s orchestrated calling campaign “only exposed the degree in which TikTok can manipulate and target a message.”
And thus it’s no surprise that the committee voted 50 to 0 to advance the bill:
Lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which greenlit the bill Thursday afternoon after months of negotiations, said the intent was not to get rid of TikTok, but to prevent a Chinese company from having access to large troves of American data. The committee voted 50-0 to advance the bill to the full House or Representatives.
Again, it’s a painfully stupid and reactionary bill, but this campaign seemed pretty mistargeted. There was a way in which TikTok could have more effectively leveraged its large user base to talk about the problems and risks of such a bill. But just sending them in to scream at Congress was perhaps not the best approach given the specific animus behind this bill.
Feisty Joe: I am glad Joe Biden seemingly took a lot of Adderall before delivering his State of the Union address, since it made him look alive. The only downside was that the actual policies he talked up were all terrible.
Overall, the speech seemed like a campaign event in more ways than one. Biden repeatedly called out "my predecessor" without criticizing Trump by name, and brought up issues like January 6, as well as Republicans' inability to pass legislation. Biden said Trump's "bowing down" to Vladimir Putin is "outrageous," as well as "dangerous" and "unacceptable" (paired with a call for more Ukraine funding, natch). There was a fair amount of heckling in the chamber throughout, and Biden himself was feisty and confrontational. The decorum of previous addresses was conspicuously absent last night. (And Biden's opponent resorted to, uh, predictably juvenile artistic rebuttals.)
As for actual substance, Biden spent a fair chunk of time "proposing temporary tax credits of $400 a month to compensate for high mortgage rates and the end of title insurance fees for federally backed mortgages," per Reason's Christian Britschgi. The White House circulated more info about this plan, which would "increas[e] the number of tax credits available for low-income housing developers" and create "a $20 billion competitive grant program that would directly fund affordable apartments." All of these are odd, expensive fixes for the actual problem, which is low housing supply that could be fixed by zoning reform and reducing the political power of NIMBY activists.
Biden also devoted a few lines to making the wealthy pay their "fair share," specifically claiming that "working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do."
"Under current law, the payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped so that, for this year, only the first $168,600 in earnings are subject to it," writes Reason's Eric Boehm. "Raising that cap—or eliminating it—is frequently discussed as one possible solution to Social Security's approaching insolvency. That seems to be the idea that Biden was gesturing towards in his speech." But this solution, clothed in eat-the-rich rhetoric, would not come anywhere close to fixing the actual Social Security funding issues and would involve a massive tax increase on the many people who make more than $168,600 in earnings.
"Too many corporations raise prices to pad their profits charging more for less," said Biden at one point, referring to what he calls "shrinkflation" and calling out candy bars and bags of chips as an example of this. "The snack companies think you won't notice if … same size bag, put fewer chips in it," he added. Not only is this comically unserious, but it's also insulting to Americans struggling with inflation and high grocery costs—no amount of blameshifting should distract from the fact that COVID-era stimulus spending (from both presidents) led to inflation, which has led to interest rate hikes to tame that inflation, which has thankfully not created a severe recession but has certainly led to a lot of budgetary pain for normal Americans.
Proportionate response: "If you ban TikTok, I will kill myself," one constituent caller told a House GOP office, according to Politico. Right now, members of the House are weighing moving forward on legislation that could possibly result in a TikTok ban for U.S. users within the next six months.
TikTok is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. The legislation, which advanced out of committee with an impressively unanimous vote, "creates a narrow process to let the executive branch prohibit access to an app owned by a foreign adversary if it poses a threat to national security," per the Associated Press, in addition to forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok so it can continue to be accessible to American users.
"If you actually read the bill, it's not a ban. It's a divestiture," Rep. Mike Gallagher (R–Wis.), cosponsor of the TikTok bill, told Politico. In fact, the decision is "squarely in the hands of TikTok to sever their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party." If the U.S. version is sold to a non-Chinese company, "TikTok will continue to survive."
Scenes from New York: "They're gonna hang out in Whole Foods," complains one New Yorker about a migrant shelter proposal that would place recent border-crossers in Gowanus, Brooklyn. (From now on, I will point to this stupid quote when people ask why I abandoned Brooklyn in favor of Queens.)
Wow. 29% for uncommitted in the final Hawai'i tally. pic.twitter.com/VMMsu1hX3S
— Read Let This Radicalize You (@JoshuaPHilll) March 7, 2024
Aware as I am that it's an offence to lie to law enforcement, I'll simply have to explain to the police that, in my view, India is a classic example of the male narcissist who lives in a state of perpetual rage that he can't compel women to take him at his own valuation. 5/5
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) March 6, 2024
The post State of the Union (on Stimulants) appeared first on Reason.com.
TikTok is perhaps the most controversial mainstream social network after Elon Musk’s X. Some people accuse it of being superficial, and worsening attention spans as well as the self-image of teenagers. Its harsher critics say that it can be used to spread misinformation, or that it might even be a potential attack vector for the Chinese government. So what’s the reality of the situation? Is TikTok safe to be on?
The answer to this is complicated. On an immediate, practical safety level, there’s not much to worry about. Millions of people watch videos on TikTok daily without being being affected by malware or data theft. Indeed the malware threat is basically non-existent unless someone tricks you into visiting a dangerous link — we’ll touch on that in the next section.
It’s when you zoom out that issues start to manifest. Some people find TikTok addictive, and it certainly doesn’t help with attention deficit problems, since the whole point is to deliver a non-stop stream of short video clips. It can distract from school or work, and like Instagram, it can potentially warp a person’s self-image — professional influencers strive to look sexy, successful, and adventurous, often well beyond what’s realistic.
TikTok has moderation to counter misinformation and disinformation — the latter being intentional — but some of it bound to slip through, and has in the past. That includes false claims about elections, vaccines, mass killings, and other topics. It wouldn’t be such an issue except that if the app’s algorithms decide you like something, they’ll feed you more of the same, and it’s possible for people to get trapped inside an ideological bubble.
For some, the greater concern is TikTok’s ownership. While the service doesn’t operate in China, its parent company — ByteDance — is based in Beijing, which has raised fears of the Chinese Communist Party gaining access to customer data or otherwise exploiting the app. In the US, the White House has banned it from devices at federal agencies, and many states have done the same. For its part ByteDance has denied any influence or control by the CCP, and in practice this concern hasn’t been made manifest.
Something else to be aware of is TikTok’s data collection. There’s more to say later on, but in brief the service knows about as much about you as a service like Facebook or X, which is to say things like personal contact info, your search and browsing history, and (if you agree) your precise location and contact lists. The company is primarily interested in making money off advertising, not anything truly insidious — but if you quit Facebook for privacy reasons, you shouldn’t be on TikTok either.
Lastly, as with any popular social network, you have to be on the lookout for scammers. To improve your defenses, we’ve identified some of the most common TikTok scams.
Kids probably shouldn’t be on TikTok. The app does have a 60-minute daily time limit for anyone under 18, requiring a passcode to extend it, as well as a block on direct messages if you’re 15 or under — but these requirements are often meaningless, since there’s no true age verification when you sign up. A child can easily lie about their age if they sign up solo, removing all limits on what they see. They shouldn’t encounter nudity, sex, or extreme violence, but there’s borderline content parents might not be comfortable with, not to mention concerns you might have about consumerism, distractions, or self-image.
Officially the minimum age for TikTok is 13, or 14 in some regions. If you do plan to let a teen on TikTok, you’ll want to take advantage of Family Pairing and Restricted Mode. These provide account control, though of course you’ll have to get your teen to consent to it.
According to TikTok, it collects:
It’s impossible to say if the Chinese government is monitoring TikTok, but the company isn’t owned by it. It’s owned by ByteDance, which in turn is controlled by investors and employees.
ByteDance, a Chinese company headquartered in Beijing. TikTok doesn’t actually operate in China.
It can access a lot of things, particularly if you enable requested permissions, but not everything. Check out our TikTok data collection guide for more info.
If you're under 30 (or happen to live with someone under 30), TikTok seems inescapable, with the For You Page holding the American psyche in an iron grip despite efforts to outright ban the app. Somewhat interestingly, however, TikTok is actually an international offshoot of an otherwise identical Chinese app called Douyin (onomatopoeia for shaking), with the only functional difference being that they're walled off from each other. — Read the rest
The post Inside Douyin, TikTok's Chinese cousin appeared first on Boing Boing.
Přihlásit se
