Matt shamelessly writes, “ He’ll say his signature issue is border security, and then spike a border security bill because he thinks that will help him win.” Biden tore down Trump’s successful border policy, allowed 8 million to cross illegally for 3 1/2 years, and cynically agreed to a new bill right before the election to try to inoculate himself against accountability for this mess.
Trump was right to oppose this. Border security is best addressed by removing from power the party that sleazily benefits from border lawlessness, not by giving them a fig leaf of a law that they will go on to ignore as soon as the election is over.
If Trump were corrupt where's the money flow? Now, Biden, there's plenty of money flow.
Trump didn't and doesn't need to be corrupt, though maybe that's changing. Joe did. So, Matt can get off slinging "corrupt" around but it doesn't wash.
Really appreciate the thoughtful commentary on both sides of this today. When I was younger I would have described myself as a free speech extremist. I won the state debate championship my sophomore year in high school support the right of nazis to hold parades. I was very sincere in my belief that bad speech can be counteracted by good speech.
My feelings have gotten more complex over time. I have had the experience of being on the receiving end of hate speech myself and understand how grey the area between symbols and speech and treats of violence can be and how intimidating it can be actually allowing free debate and political participation for all members of society. I am much more open to the idea that allowing hate speech is dangerous.
But that still leaves open the question of who gets to define hate speech. My one conservative neighbor on my block moved a few months ago. Before that she expressed the opinion that my Black Lives Matter sign in my yard was hate speech. She stole 120 of them out of my yard over 6 year period. Her annoyance at my back stock and quick replacements was actually a little amusing to me. But if she were in charge of banning hate speech, she would clearly ban a lot of what I would consider appropriate political speech. I might like to think my short list of hate symbols and slurs would be the majority opinion but our system doesn't always favor the actual majority and majorities in this country have been on the wrong side of a lot of moral issues over our history.
So I am basically of the opinion that we would "should" ban hate speech but don't think we actually effectively can without risking the hateful banning the opposite over time.
The definition of propaganda is even less clear and I just don't see any way to meaningfully define that which wouldn't be open to abuse that was a greater threat than the propaganda even though I also think propaganda is very dangerous.
I understand that Tiktok is more likely to be used to promote propaganda by a state actor that is hostile to the US than other platforms but I am not sure is in itself more dangerous to the US or its people that internal extremist propaganda. I fear another Jan 6th more than invasion from China.
I think at this point what I would like to see would be the United States government requiring a 10 second message to appear on TikTok everytime you open it and every 15 minutes straight that you are on it saying "TikTok is owned by a Chinese company and is curated through a secret algorithm. This site does not fact check content and content may include fraud and misinformation. Users should be aware that content may be have been created, promoted, or withheld to advance the political interest of a foreign actor and may be dangerous propaganda. Users should use this produce and rely upon information received here with care." I don't actually think the content of the message itself would be hugely powerful but it might make folks a bit more on guard. If nothing else it could operate like the screen zen app on my phone that makes me wait 10 seconds before it will open Facebook and makes me do it again if I stay on for more than 10 minutes. It at least breaks some of the addictive auto play features and that might result in less use.
If we wanted require a similar message on other algorithm curated sites minus the foreign actor language I'd be good with that too.
I hadn't heard of the idea of a progressive tax on digital ads as a way to incentivize social media diversification. I actually think that is a really good idea.
I don't think it works, in practice, unless you're using the revenue specifically to subsidize the creation, expansion, and perhaps even operating budgets of competing platforms.
In reality, the two biggest factors in an online advertising marketplace are total consumer reach -- how many people in the target audience are regularly interacting -- and technology/data support for matching advertiser/product/service interest with customer interest.
Even if the best marketplaces are the giants and are paying a larger tax, they'll take the cut to margin to keep the eyeballs and advertisers.
I think that is true if the tax rates are old mildly progressive but if there is a stark tax difference for a small revenue vs large, it might help some smaller regional services compete.
I want to push back against the idea this bill is well drafted. It really isn’t. (I am a software person, not a lawyer, so take my analysis with a grain of salt.)
There’s not really a pithy way to put the problems, but basically rather than just focusing on forcing a TikTok divesture using well established commerce regulation mechanisms, like normal sanctions, it instead uses a weird speech act prohibition thing as its remedy in the case TikTok fails to comply. Rather than just saying “TikTok has to sell, or Americans companies can’t do commerce with TikTok”, which would accomplish the goal and is clearly legal, it says “TikTok has to sell, or Americans can no longer share any software made by TikTok”, which is not clearly legal, and actually arguably illegal. This will probably needlessly open up a constitutional law fight in the courts in the case TikTok opts to not comply.
This is heightened because the bill also contains a mechanism for the President to designate other apps/services for similar treatment in the future.
I’m pretty ambivalent on the substantive debate here about the ban, but this bill could use more time to bake. Hopefully if it is actually on track to pass Congress cleans it up first to accomplish their goal without a fight.
I noticed the same thing. Why does this ban find its coercive lever in telling Apple & Google what piece of software they can't redistribute in their respective App Stores?
That's literally a prior restraint upon the first amendment rights of two non-parties.
If ByteDance is the concern, the State/Commerce departments could always just designate them on the OFAC lists for sanctions, unable to do business with US persons and entities.
Given the weak nature of the justification, perhaps they regard that as too risky to global commerce with the US. If that's the case, I'm even more against the bill trying to work around that.
What gets me is if they have some issue with the current standards for sanctions designation, or if they think the penalties are a bit much in this case, they are already passing a law, so they can just tweak that for this case. It would be arguably even easier and less work than whatever they’re doing here.
I feel like there hasn't been much to say on the Trump part because there's widespread agreement here that he's selfish and can be bought off when it comes to policy.
Yes. What I do think is exceptional in the article though, is that the article does draw attention to specific position flips and the likely self-centered benefits which purportedly initiated the change in position. For me, at least, the collection of these examples together as a set in demonstrating a larger pattern was very powerful.
On this specific issue, I’m not sure as a tactical matter exactly where the line should be drawn, if we want to get a bill passed that can survive court challenges and that will functionally cripple TikTok, Reels, etc.
Big picture though, I’m a bit of a radical so for me it’s not about a line, it’s just a direction. With every lever we can get our hands on, I think we should pull in the direction of getting people to spend less time sitting alone looking at screens. Ban algorithmic feeds, implement progressive taxes on digital ad revenue, cancel any programs to subsidize broadband access, approve monopolistic mergers for ISPs and cell networks, drive a stake through the heart of net neutrality, unleash NIMBYism in cell tower siting and satellite dishes, raise tariffs on imported electronics; I don’t care what color the cat is as long as it kills mice.
If TikTok makes half of a generation or two incredibly stupid, we're likely not going to care about the moral conundrum of whether or not we should have shut it down in 20 years. We're just going to regret we didn't do it sooner.
1. TikTok has the potential to be spyware due to the permissions requested as well as its coziness with the CCP. This is the strongest point for a forced sale and doesn't touch on 1A considerations.
2. Americans have the literal constitutional right to consume foreign propaganda. This is the strongest case against a forced sale.
3. Algorithmic manipulation is a risk if the CCP "orders the switch". This is arguably the most novel issue for 1A considerations for Americans versus the government's mandate to ensure national security. I'm not sure where I fall here.
Matt shamelessly writes, “ He’ll say his signature issue is border security, and then spike a border security bill because he thinks that will help him win.” Biden tore down Trump’s successful border policy, allowed 8 million to cross illegally for 3 1/2 years, and cynically agreed to a new bill right before the election to try to inoculate himself against accountability for this mess.
Trump was right to oppose this. Border security is best addressed by removing from power the party that sleazily benefits from border lawlessness, not by giving them a fig leaf of a law that they will go on to ignore as soon as the election is over.
If Trump were corrupt where's the money flow? Now, Biden, there's plenty of money flow.
Trump didn't and doesn't need to be corrupt, though maybe that's changing. Joe did. So, Matt can get off slinging "corrupt" around but it doesn't wash.
Is there a better film about White House involvement in foreign ownership of media than Network (1976)?
This post rocked.
Really appreciate the thoughtful commentary on both sides of this today. When I was younger I would have described myself as a free speech extremist. I won the state debate championship my sophomore year in high school support the right of nazis to hold parades. I was very sincere in my belief that bad speech can be counteracted by good speech.
My feelings have gotten more complex over time. I have had the experience of being on the receiving end of hate speech myself and understand how grey the area between symbols and speech and treats of violence can be and how intimidating it can be actually allowing free debate and political participation for all members of society. I am much more open to the idea that allowing hate speech is dangerous.
But that still leaves open the question of who gets to define hate speech. My one conservative neighbor on my block moved a few months ago. Before that she expressed the opinion that my Black Lives Matter sign in my yard was hate speech. She stole 120 of them out of my yard over 6 year period. Her annoyance at my back stock and quick replacements was actually a little amusing to me. But if she were in charge of banning hate speech, she would clearly ban a lot of what I would consider appropriate political speech. I might like to think my short list of hate symbols and slurs would be the majority opinion but our system doesn't always favor the actual majority and majorities in this country have been on the wrong side of a lot of moral issues over our history.
So I am basically of the opinion that we would "should" ban hate speech but don't think we actually effectively can without risking the hateful banning the opposite over time.
The definition of propaganda is even less clear and I just don't see any way to meaningfully define that which wouldn't be open to abuse that was a greater threat than the propaganda even though I also think propaganda is very dangerous.
I understand that Tiktok is more likely to be used to promote propaganda by a state actor that is hostile to the US than other platforms but I am not sure is in itself more dangerous to the US or its people that internal extremist propaganda. I fear another Jan 6th more than invasion from China.
I think at this point what I would like to see would be the United States government requiring a 10 second message to appear on TikTok everytime you open it and every 15 minutes straight that you are on it saying "TikTok is owned by a Chinese company and is curated through a secret algorithm. This site does not fact check content and content may include fraud and misinformation. Users should be aware that content may be have been created, promoted, or withheld to advance the political interest of a foreign actor and may be dangerous propaganda. Users should use this produce and rely upon information received here with care." I don't actually think the content of the message itself would be hugely powerful but it might make folks a bit more on guard. If nothing else it could operate like the screen zen app on my phone that makes me wait 10 seconds before it will open Facebook and makes me do it again if I stay on for more than 10 minutes. It at least breaks some of the addictive auto play features and that might result in less use.
If we wanted require a similar message on other algorithm curated sites minus the foreign actor language I'd be good with that too.
Thanks. I’ve often had difficulty articulating the “for sale “nature of the big orange guy’s regime. This helps.
Interesting. The WSJ just published a piece suggesting that the effort to ban/replace TikTok accelerated significantly in response to what was perceived to be broader distribution of pro-Palestinian content and the problems that causes for certain Democratic party figures. https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-tiktok-was-blindsided-by-a-u-s-bill-that-could-ban-it-7201ac8b?st=xauz8dozz2pd3s6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I hadn't heard of the idea of a progressive tax on digital ads as a way to incentivize social media diversification. I actually think that is a really good idea.
I don't think it works, in practice, unless you're using the revenue specifically to subsidize the creation, expansion, and perhaps even operating budgets of competing platforms.
In reality, the two biggest factors in an online advertising marketplace are total consumer reach -- how many people in the target audience are regularly interacting -- and technology/data support for matching advertiser/product/service interest with customer interest.
Even if the best marketplaces are the giants and are paying a larger tax, they'll take the cut to margin to keep the eyeballs and advertisers.
I think that is true if the tax rates are old mildly progressive but if there is a stark tax difference for a small revenue vs large, it might help some smaller regional services compete.
I want to push back against the idea this bill is well drafted. It really isn’t. (I am a software person, not a lawyer, so take my analysis with a grain of salt.)
There’s not really a pithy way to put the problems, but basically rather than just focusing on forcing a TikTok divesture using well established commerce regulation mechanisms, like normal sanctions, it instead uses a weird speech act prohibition thing as its remedy in the case TikTok fails to comply. Rather than just saying “TikTok has to sell, or Americans companies can’t do commerce with TikTok”, which would accomplish the goal and is clearly legal, it says “TikTok has to sell, or Americans can no longer share any software made by TikTok”, which is not clearly legal, and actually arguably illegal. This will probably needlessly open up a constitutional law fight in the courts in the case TikTok opts to not comply.
This is heightened because the bill also contains a mechanism for the President to designate other apps/services for similar treatment in the future.
I’m pretty ambivalent on the substantive debate here about the ban, but this bill could use more time to bake. Hopefully if it is actually on track to pass Congress cleans it up first to accomplish their goal without a fight.
I noticed the same thing. Why does this ban find its coercive lever in telling Apple & Google what piece of software they can't redistribute in their respective App Stores?
That's literally a prior restraint upon the first amendment rights of two non-parties.
If ByteDance is the concern, the State/Commerce departments could always just designate them on the OFAC lists for sanctions, unable to do business with US persons and entities.
Given the weak nature of the justification, perhaps they regard that as too risky to global commerce with the US. If that's the case, I'm even more against the bill trying to work around that.
What gets me is if they have some issue with the current standards for sanctions designation, or if they think the penalties are a bit much in this case, they are already passing a law, so they can just tweak that for this case. It would be arguably even easier and less work than whatever they’re doing here.
It has occurred to me that this article is really about two topics:
1) Policy as to TikTok - and -
2) Trump's "evolution" on TikTok subsequent to alleged contributions and/or self-interested benefit.
I find I object to the bill's proposed policy as to TikTok on numerous grounds, but largely centered in First Amendment jurisprudence.
I find I highly agree with Matt Y.'s takes on what this and other mentioned policy-evolutions from Trump suggest.
I feel like there hasn't been much to say on the Trump part because there's widespread agreement here that he's selfish and can be bought off when it comes to policy.
Yes. What I do think is exceptional in the article though, is that the article does draw attention to specific position flips and the likely self-centered benefits which purportedly initiated the change in position. For me, at least, the collection of these examples together as a set in demonstrating a larger pattern was very powerful.
On this specific issue, I’m not sure as a tactical matter exactly where the line should be drawn, if we want to get a bill passed that can survive court challenges and that will functionally cripple TikTok, Reels, etc.
Big picture though, I’m a bit of a radical so for me it’s not about a line, it’s just a direction. With every lever we can get our hands on, I think we should pull in the direction of getting people to spend less time sitting alone looking at screens. Ban algorithmic feeds, implement progressive taxes on digital ad revenue, cancel any programs to subsidize broadband access, approve monopolistic mergers for ISPs and cell networks, drive a stake through the heart of net neutrality, unleash NIMBYism in cell tower siting and satellite dishes, raise tariffs on imported electronics; I don’t care what color the cat is as long as it kills mice.
472 comments in, I'll save my thought for the evening thread. But suffice it (for now) to say, "What David M-With-Too-Many-Syllables said."
Fun Fact: Eddy Cue (mentioned briefly in this article) was my youth basketball coach.
If TikTok makes half of a generation or two incredibly stupid, we're likely not going to care about the moral conundrum of whether or not we should have shut it down in 20 years. We're just going to regret we didn't do it sooner.
Hard to see how a social media platform beholden to the Chinese Communist Party is good for the US.
Especially given the growing consensus that social media is bad for young people, as Jonathan Haidt has argued.
- https://www.afterbabel.com/
- https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/729231/the-anxious-generation-by-jonathan-haidt/9780593655030/
- https://lifeafterbabel.com/
A summation stream:
1. TikTok has the potential to be spyware due to the permissions requested as well as its coziness with the CCP. This is the strongest point for a forced sale and doesn't touch on 1A considerations.
2. Americans have the literal constitutional right to consume foreign propaganda. This is the strongest case against a forced sale.
3. Algorithmic manipulation is a risk if the CCP "orders the switch". This is arguably the most novel issue for 1A considerations for Americans versus the government's mandate to ensure national security. I'm not sure where I fall here.