Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users (nbcnews.com)
752 points by Leary 25 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 2454 comments



What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?

Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?


> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...


Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives.

But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it.

Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.


> hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple.

'cos we're all equal, no?


The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US).

I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy.

> 'cos we're all equal, no?

No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.)

On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets.

If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.


> If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.

I do t use tiktok and have no skin in the game as an EU resident, but setting a precedent for this kind of behaviour to permit clthe government to simply block anything it wants is basically following in CCPs footsteps, that's certainly not a good thing in my eyes.


This is not a new precedent. The US government has placed foreign-ownership restrictions on media companies since before the public internet was a thing. The only difference here is that it's targeted at a specific company, but I'm not really up in arms about that, even though I think they definitely could have written the law without naming ByteDance or TikTok specifically.


Not just media companies, the government block a Japanese company from buying US Steel. Not out of antitrust concerns but due to the foreign ownership aspect.


Yup, and that was done against one of our most loyal allies.


Yep, but people don't pay attention to history anymore and their ignorance keeps us repeating it.


Did they ever?


I think more people in government did because they actually were educated and not just all grifters.


I feel like takes like these are coming from a place of extreme naivete, or worse, nihilism. Either people don't understand why it's problematic that our most influential social media platform among basically everyone age 0-30 is fully controlled by the CCP, or people really think the CCP wouldn't use its ability to control any Chinese company to aggressively mold US public opinion in concert with their inevitable invasion of the democratic country Taiwan,

or... the nihilistic option:

People know China would engage in information warfare using TikTok in a situation like that, but they foolishly think the CCP is on even moral ground with free democracies so none of this matters, and we've gotta keep the funny musical memes flowing.

For all one's misgivings about the US -- and there are many valid ones! -- before deciding these governments are equal, talk to a Chinese political dissident, if you can find one, since they sometimes disappear.


After the invasion of Ukraine, the EU blocked a number of outlets for spreading pro-Russian disinformation (RT, Sputnik for example) so this would be nothing new.


As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US


> As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US

Wild statement, so lets look at some data.

https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/1337388/classement-pays...

These are a list of the freedom of press in the EU with their corresponding indexes.

Lets compare that to the US : https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states

Index 2024 Score : 66.59

Not looking good for your opinion but lets look at some more that are consumer privacy focused, which was my main point.

https://iapp.org/resources/article/countries-at-a-glance-pri...

IAPP isn't a bad source IMO but hard to evaluate their methods, but lets see.

> Level of understanding about data collection and use

Netherlands : Weak - 14% USA : Weak - 24%

Not great, I could spend time finding more, but the summary is that the EU has regulations that require companies to limit the useage of consumers information and privacy. The EU is consumer privacy focused, wheras the US seems to be Enterprise & Organisation focused, also it's state level enforcements fracture enforcement even further.

Lets look at the US CCPA vs GDPR :

A crucial difference is that GDPR requires individuals to opt-in before businesses can collect data while there is no opt-in condition in CCPA.

That should say it all.

Edit : I forgot to add, outside of Sanctions the EU has no control to simply decide to ban a company when it feels like it.


You start off sounding like you're arguing against the idea that the EU exerts more control over media than the US, but then most of what you said seems to support the fact that they do so.

Am I misreading what your intent?


I am saying the EU does not exert 'control' they protect citizens interests via regulations. Its a different model.

Regulations are for the companies.. But they're not banned. It's a different model to the US.

To clarify. Companies are not banned.. they're fined (often not enough) until they align..


Protecting people is always the justification. “We aren’t restricting your freedom, we are protecting you.” That governments seek to “protect” people from words on a page is wild to me.

> regulations are for the companies. But they’re not banned.

So if they don’t follow the regulations they simply keep paying fines indefinitely? Until they run out of money? Until the company goes out of business? We aren’t banning those companies, instead we’ll attempt to bankrupt them if they stay in our markets; unless they do what we say. In other words, extortion?


I see your point, but those regulations are also given with full justifications, backed up by research etc.

This tiktok issue was brought under 'national security' with what feels like a "Trust me bro".


Ah, but you see, pigs are in fact more equal than other animals


Numerous examples of China-says-jump-everyone-says-how-high.

NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".

1bn customers = a lot of money. A company that will kiss the ring will do the right thing by its shareholders and a nasty thing against humanity. I am 200% sure that Apple has given the keys for all users/phones/servers in China to the gov/CCP and nobody complained.

If North Korea had 1bn potential customers, we would be seeing Kim very differently.

We are cattle. It's all a 1984-ish sham.

Historically China has been so large and 'diverse' (not to be confused with DEI) (like India and Russia). It's not "one chinese person is just like anyone else". There are multiple Republics/States/etc. It takes an emperor to keep together an empire. And that usually requires (plenty of) violence.

Communism is built to make people suffer, remove individuality and requires total obedience and personal reformation to be the 'good citizen'. You and me both are EU citizens. We are all different and we respect/accept each other. In China if you disagree, you disappear. They would very much like to do the same to the rest of the world. And one day they will, just not yet. I hope they implode before they do (like all empires).

(apologies for the grim tone)(I suggest "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order by Ray Dalio": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8)


> NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".

Houston Rockets GM and James Harden:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harden#Politics

* https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/nbas-apo...

* https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27787634/james-harden-ap...


John Cena was probably the wrestler HenryBemis was referring to. Although he started learning Chinese a long time ago, not for the purpose of apologizing. A couple years ago he called Taiwan a country, then issued an apology.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/john-cena-very...


Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer.

Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India.

https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-...

You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this year.


> unlike the US

The US is not a master piece of freedom. Want to market or own foreign shares? Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?

Yes, China is absolutely worse. But the US is not a good example.


I never claimed the US was perfect, just better. I think using it as an example is fine. No country is perfect by any metric; everything is a matter of comparison over who is better or worse on a particular thing.

> Want to market or own foreign shares?

ADRs work for that, no?

> Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?

I agree those things are bad, but they have nothing to do with market access, which is the topic at hand.


I have a London stock exchange trading account with Schwab. I think I opened it online. The only catch is that I can only deposit or withdraw funds via my US Schwab account.


Well if we aren't going to get the actual fruits of capitalism I'm for damn sure going to fight it tooth and nail at home. Shit sucks and I can't think of anyone I trust less than an American capitalist.


> The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US)

Is there any reason you’re skipping the past 40+ years of turmoil in the Middle East purely from the US trying to control oil fields? Because Iran would like a word with, and there’s a hell lot of other countries behind them waiting their turn


Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but the US obviously doesn't have any issue meddling in other country's economies or political systems. The US also obviously allows foreigners to business in the US without many restrictions. Is this the "free market" I keep hearing about? I don't know.

The OP was contrasting this with China, that does not allow foreigners access to their markets. As a regular American, quite honestly, I would like a bit of protectionism from the US, as I recently bought a house and had to compete with cash offers from Chinese banks. It's insane to me that we allow foreigners to buy property here, while our own citizens are being increasingly priced out of our own country.


Isn’t that how laissez faire capitalism works - the person with the higher bid gets the sale, not based on central planned rules of which country the current administration is beefing with that day?


I'm pretty sure Meta apps, at least Facebook, are banned in China still. Apple complies with the Chinese government and removes banned apps otherwise it can not operate there. I think even Tiktok itself is banned in China, there is a special version just for the Chinese market so their consumers can not see global content.


There is no such ban. Microsoft operates tons of services in China. Internet companies just need to host all Chinese in China using an approved provider. This is the exact same requirement extended to Tiktok, for ages US tiktok data is stored in Oracle cloud with full audit access by appointed American firms.


Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. They are not in the same business. Meta is in the social networking domain, which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security. The "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" gave them good reason to believe that online social networks were a driver of societal change too powerful not to control. And they control it very very tightly.


> Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. Meta is in the social networking domain

Microsoft operated its own popular social network in China, called MSN Messenger. Tens of millions Chinese users were on that platform for like a decade until the release of mobile based WeChat.

> which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security

It is a matter of national security, we all saw what happened on twitter shortly before the 6th Jan 2021 attack.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-5-2...

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2...

That is the exact reason why everyone agreed that TikTok must host all US data and its deployed recommendation algorithm code in the US with 3rd party audit access by an appointed US entity.

The only question here is why should Meta and Google be exempted from the exact same rules if they want to operate their services in China.


MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_China

They were defeated by the QQ app and shut down in 2014.

https://technode.com/2014/08/29/microsoft-messenger-shut-dow...


> MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law)

Microsoft retained a 50% ownership of MSN China, just check the link you cited. Microsoft also retained the full ownership of the MSN messenger software while MSN China was just in charge of its day to day operation in China.

Also interesting to see that millions of Tesla EVs are being sold in China, hundreds of millions other American cars were sold in the past, but when Chinese EVs try to crack the US market it sudden becomes a national security issue.


> Also interesting to see that millions of Tesla EVs are being sold in China, hundreds of millions other American cars were sold in the past, but when Chinese EVs try to crack the US market it sudden becomes a national security issue.

Why are you making it sound like China doesn't restrict Tesla for "national security"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/business/tesla-barred-china-s... https://fortune.com/2023/07/26/tesla-cars-barred-china-world... https://www.carscoops.com/2024/01/more-venues-across-china-a... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-cars-are-banned-in-... https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/china-bans-tesla-drivin...


Tesla was asked to complete a comprehensive review to ensure its data compliance. Tesla did it and has been cleared for such data security issue, that is how Tesla sold 670k units in China in 2024.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-29/as-musk-v...

DJI drones have been operated & tested by numerous US agencies for ages, yet it is still a national security threat. how convenient!


Im pretty sure there is no ban per se. They just say: "either put your servers in our jurisdiction or gtfo of here", to which Meta and co. voluntarily decide to not enter the market. CCP still advertises as open to foreign companies though


So does Europe btw and they comply with that.


Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.

Apple is quite a special case since iPhone ecosystem creates many jobs in China. If Apple managed to move jobs to India (or wherever cheap labor is), Chinese government will stop being nice to them.

And even then, right now in China, iCloud service is run by Guizhou cloud, not Apple.


> Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.

Yeah, and that reason was incompetence, it's not for lack of trying.


1) China already exerts massive control over all of their social medias via social credit censoring.

2) China absolutely did ban most external social media and forces those that remain to hold data locally.

3) China still has the Great Firewall that everybody forgets about.

4) "He does it too" is the argument a two year old uses and should be accorded the same level of respect.


They already do and it has been that way since "opening" up their markets.


If I recall correctly, Apple isn’t allowed to run iCloud services in China, they are run and controlled by a local company


> Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.


Which specific owner is the Chinese government?


[flagged]


Is HN just…okay with slurs now?


Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?


You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.

The US is simply reciprocating.


I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.

This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.


Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs

India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020


Every state to a different degree subsidizes its automobile industry.

Living in Australia now with access to Chinese EV's is eyeopening. It's great for the consumer. To the extent you accept EV's as a solution for reducing GHG's, the cheaper prices are making it easier to end our reliance on oil. Americans don't realize what they are missing out on.

Better than Tesla-quality vehicles for half the price.


Why exactly are they half the price? What are the externalities of Chinese EV manufacturing. They may be half the price, but I doubt they are half the cost.


> China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary

TikTok ban is not about vengeance on China, it's about violations of own citizens' freedoms.

> aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe

Russia right now is weaker and has the least potential to conquer anything than literally ever before.


India still depends on Chinese imports and technology, regardless of how it feels about the country. The TikTok thing was an easy political stunt.


If banning Tik Tok is an easy political stunt then why has this spawned a couple several thousand comment posts in the last 48 hours alone?


Because if there are two subjects HN cannot resist pontificating on at length, it's social media/the modern web and Sinopolitics. Add a dash of red team/blue team sniping and it's the perfect storm.


Easy in India. I’m sure they also debated it at length there. But they went through with it and it largely did nothing.


You're really not going to enjoy history class when it comes to American empire


I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.

And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.


> I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.

I can't speak for most Westerners, but I fully believe the United States to be an empire in decline already. Who will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an interesting question, I think China and India both could make a solid case for themselves.

> And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US

I don't really think about it in terms of "my interests." My ideal incoming superpower would be any superpower that's ready to deal with existential threats to our species like climate change, along with our global social ills like over-reliance on social media and the year over year alienation of everyone from everyone else. If that country comes with me needing to learn Mandarin then that's what has to happen.

I'm highly disillusioned with both the "West" as an idea (which can include any number of countries depending how racist the speaker is feeling at the moment). I still believe in Democracy, representative or otherwise, but I don't see any of those in your "West" anymore. I see a collection of ailing, aged empires full of greedy old men stealing as much money as they can so they and their families can coast out the collapse they have engineered. I contrast this with China, which certainly has problems too, and the CCP gets up to some nonsense, but their ability to exude top-down control also makes them more able to actually solve problems instead of endlessly bickering about them. And with respect to the notions of individual liberty and freedom that I do want to see in the world, it's clear that the West is too focused on maintaining the rights of the individual to do what they so please, and not enough on maintaining the planet upon which they would do it. How free is anyone if we can't leave our homes due to smog or unlivable temperatures/weathers?

Not saying it's an overall improvement. I am saying that the U.S. is on it's way out, and China is the likely incoming global superpower. We can do precious little to change this if we even want to, and I'm not rushing for a fire extinguisher here.


> Who will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an interesting question, I think China and India both could make a solid case for themselves

With the exception of the USSR, every superpower’s decline in history has involved a burst of violence. China or India won’t take over if America collapses because America collapsing (versus slow fading over lifetimes) almost guarantees nuclear war resetting the table.


I’d prefer if there wasn’t any dominant powers. But that goes against human nature it seems.


Sure, that would be great. But we live in a world where that kind of thing is probably inevitable.


Why do we assume that would be great? The last time we had no dominant power it lead to ww1…


If anything, WW1 happened because there were too many empires rather than a lack of any dominant powers.

Unless you’re suggesting that what the world needs is a single dominant empire? Which would be an odd position to take because history has proven that monopolies are much much worse for abusing power.

Maybe if/when we colonise other planets we can think of the Earth as a single government with countries acting like states (kind of like the EU but with less sovereignty for each state). However that’s only going to happen if we work together and generally cooperation is viewed as counterproductive to empire building. So we come full circle back to my original point.


It's not very clear, but the US version is more freedom plus killing more people, and the Chinese version is more servitude plus killing fewer people.

I think people who have seen one up close claim to prefer the other (but thets meaningless) while people who have seen both start to lean toward servitude, unless they are highly religious.


Sounds like what a rapist would say about their victims


Since we all live in democratic regimes, maybe, just maybe, the will of the people should matter here at least a little bit? Banning TikTok is a deeply unpopular idea, across all party lines. It's only popular among the anti-democratic elites, from Trump (who first got this ball rolling), to Biden, to European leaders playing their "high-level" games.


This is simply false, at least in the US. A small majority favor banning it. It's not huge, but it's not a "deeply unpopular idea".


Here is a poll showing only 42% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats supporting the ban:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2025/01/15/tiktok-ba...

I was a bit wrong in calling it deeply unpopular across party lines, but it's certainly quite unpopular overall, and deeply unpopular among Democrats.


You're lumping "not sure" in with "oppose the ban". You could just as easily lump "not sure" with "support the ban" and conclude that not banning it is deeply unpopular.

Here's the actual poll: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/05/support-f...


If you're trying to argue that a majority favors banning it, then, obviously, all opinions other than "favor banning it" have to be lumped together as "don't favor banning it"


It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives this power to future administrations.

It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Not, All your app are belong to us.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...


Does the law said it has to be sold to a US entity? I think it just can't be run by "adversary"


More fair would have been a restriction based on some framework like...

+ Public forum or utility

+ Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population

= Majority Ownership of corporate division and management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held within country OR a security partnered country (the easiest criteria for that might be they have an obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).

That way it isn't specific about any given platform or company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.


That's almost exactly how the law was written. Only the userbase was specified in absolute numbers (1 million MAU).


But if the EU or Canada or Australia bought it, that would fulfill the terms of the law.


EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a matter of national security. TikTok, and social networking in general, has been one for some time now. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor thanks to social networks.

US on the other hand now has its social media controlled by oligarchs, not much better maybe.


If that’s your position, then you would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?


> would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?

If I were the EU, I would. We hacked Merkel.


Well yeah, but she was totally asking for it.


I'd be mindful that having a NATO partner be able to spy is maybe better than having Huawei spy if you have to choose, but yes, I think it's a risk that EU countries should be aware of and probably are more aware of than with social networks.


What is your opinion on India's ban of TikTok a few years ago?


You do realize many US companies are not practically allowed to operate in some European jurisdictions? Uber and Amazon come to mind.


That has nothing to with them being US companies. Or are there any jurisdictions where Bolt/(other local company) is allowed to freely operate but Uber is banned?


Aren’t they for a different reason, like workers law protection?


Those are just examples. Whatever the reason for each, sovereign jurisdictions don't allow free access to their resources/markets just out of spite. That includes Europe.


That’s only partially true though. I don’t think Uber itself is not allowed to operate anywhere. Rather it’s business model is illegal in some cities/areas. Usually you can still use Uber to hire actual taxis there.

However exact same rules apply to its European competitors like Bolt. Make it entirely unrelated to this situation.


They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.


To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly reduces that “free market price”. Technically it’s certainly not “free” anymore..


Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.


The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.


> The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world.

This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US.

ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner.

I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.


That's false. The US law requires TikTok to be sold to a non-adversary. A US company could buy it, or some German or Spanish company, and either would fulfill the requirements to avoid a ban in the US.

> No other country could get away with demanding this.

TikTok is already banned in India. Brasil banned Twitter for a while until they caved to Brasil's demands.


India banned TikTok a few years ago. Brazil banned X until it agreed to take down posts in violation of Brazilian law. The European Union fines US-based tech companies frequently.

"Entitlement" in the context of nations is irrelevant. Nations exercise power in accordance with their interests.


The latter two, in theory, apply to local companies too. The TikTok bans specifically apply to “foreign adversaries”.


Domestic adversaries don't own any companies, for obvious reasons.


I would disagree…?


> The United States here feels entitled to own and run

It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.


Well.. SAP could buy it. Or some other European tech company that could afford it..


> The world is more than just China and the United States.

But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.


Surely this is sarcasm?

Yes absolutely. China.

You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.

And why do you think Google and Facebook don’t even offer their services there?


> You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.

I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim.

"As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."


True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though.

And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).


What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).


They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_inv...

Passenger cars were removed in 2021.

However:

> .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited.

So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China.

There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited.

Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.


They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they can't operate in the country if they don't sell.

They have a choice to leave the country or follow the rules.


Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre ultimatum for the owners of the app.


Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..).

I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.


Where you launch in a place where the government actually controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.


Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like).

Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China.

As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .


Fox News, Twitter and Meta are far worse influences on American society than TikTok.

And every big US platform is just a big siphon for the NSA when it comes to non U.S. persons.

The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.

It's the tech policy analog of the Iraq War (on the level of stupidity, loss of standing, inevitable consequences etc).

Not saying this ban is equivalent to a decision that killed 1M+ people, lead to ISIS, and created the migrant crisis and more


> The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.

Your adversary does not care about morals, but will leverage yours in his favour.


[flagged]


All media has propaganda. But if you objectively look at what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and then look at RT's coverage of the war, you must be pretty brainwashed to trust RT any more than American media.

There are plenty of corruption and issues in EU, some of which RT may have covered legitimately, but at least we're not intentionally massacring civilians and sending our poor and minorities to die as cannon fodder in an useless invasion. There's a reason why all European neighbours of Russia have or want to join NATO, and that is its imperialistic and aggressive policies.

You should come visit us in Finland or maybe our neighbour Estonia and really see what ordinary people have to say about Russia. Real people, who actually live next to them.


Well, different standards apply for government than for private companies.


The government is not a company regardless of how many doofuses want to run it like one.


lol perfect


> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement

They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them

Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement


The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those who already had the app installed. It just prevented new updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the law is just the second act.


The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they continued to provide services to Bytedance.

As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the app isn't distributed in the US anymore.


There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok appears to have just preemptively shut down the app before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.


Even without following the letter of the law it's entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150 million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet.

It was a gambit used for net neutrality in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day


Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one claiming that they were just "following the law", that's what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok was making a political point by shutting down, then you agree with the person you're replying to.


Not everything on the internet has to be a binary argument.


Such compromises happen between companies as well when a particular app is popular. Facebook and Uber accessing private java apis which meant Google couldn't change the internals as these apps are popular.


Sure that may be smart to forward interest.

Nico argued TikTok made the minimum change required by law.


Oracle was shutting them down shortly after the clock struck midnight Sunday GMT. [1]

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-start-shu...


I believe Tiktok shut down the app in India in the same way without being "obligated to" either before the order came into effect, albeit without the dramatic messaging.

(The latter part is probably because Tiktok's banning was not particulaly divisive within the population as it is in the US.)


I don't know exact figures, but when Tiktok was banned, Instagram was really popular - due to being pushed by Facebook, which was really really popular in India by then. None of my friends were on Tiktok, but all where there on Instagram. The reels thing was not popular but Facebook linked the account automatically and you just keep adding Facebook friends there as well.

Tiktok had a better algorithm (to get hooked) but Instagram eventually caught up (with algo)..


The dramatic messaging was entirely the point. India probably did not have an easily exploitable target for such a message, so there was no point in trying that there.



Oracle did shut them down last night, if Google and Apple have to drop their apps on the apps store, Oracle and other providers have to drop them too. Btw, the app won't function even if parts of the infra is down. Btw, business is risk averse, they don't want to give any excuses for government to fine them. Bytedance should definitely shutdown everything and blocked all US users unless they have explicit, written and legally bidding instructions from the Justice Department. Only an executive order is enough. They asked Biden to give that, but Biden just smirked


Is anyone but politicians to blame?


I’m not sure this is correct. I see where you’re coming from, but there was a clear date that the law was going to be enacted by, and tiktok simply followed that date. Pretty much everybody expected tiktok to be required to shut down. The law is clear that there are penalties for tiktok continuing to operate past that date, so it’s not really surprising.

They were telling users who to blame and who to thank because in this specific case, the blame and the thank are pretty clear. The Biden administration approved the ban, and the Trump administration reversed it. Blaming one and thanking the other is also hardly surprising.


Help me understand then if they’re following the letter of the law what changed with the law between the shutoff and now?


Well, "the law" is a shorthand for "how the police behave" and there is a certain amount of realpolitik here. The basic argument here would be that the US Congress made a scary growling sound and TikTok folded immediately because the Congress is terrifying. But then Trump made more of a friendly sound and so they think they can operate a bit longer with some level of safety.

There is no question that TikTok is a politically sensitive app and the US/China are very nearly in the funnel to a major war so a lot of the usual niceties are questionable. Previously the US has attempted something that looked a lot like a black-bag kidnapping of a Chinese industrialist [0]. I'd imagine that the TikTok people are acutely sensitive towards how the law is actually going to be interpreted and enforced in practice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou


This is basically the same tactic to the SOPA/PIPA protests [1]. I don't know why people are bending over backwards to pretend it was something other than a political stunt. Also, Trump's rhetoric has remained unchanged since well before this - a 90 day extension. They wanted to flex their muscle to show the US political establishment how many US users there were and how much sway they had to give them more leverage in their negotiations. That's about it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...


The timeline doesn't add up.

Jan 17: Biden administration says it will leave TikTok ban enforcement for Trump [1]

Early Jan 18: Trump says he will 'most likely' give TikTok a 90-day extension to avoid a ban [2]

Late Jan 18: TikTok makes app unavailable for U.S. users ahead of ban [3]

Midday Jan 19: TikTok begins restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments [4]

They already knew what was going to happen. They also changed the message shortly after disabling it from "We're working to restore service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned." to "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Stay tuned!" [5]

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-administrat...

[2] https://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-likely-give-...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-makes-app-unav...

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-says-restoring...

[5] https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/tiktok-sends-notice-to-users...


There's no evidence that they were obligated to shut off the app immediately at the time the law was enacted.



Which is curious if the sourcing by The Information is legitimate, considering that the FTC hasn't yet begun enforcement.


If your cloud provider tells you they are shutting you down on date X, you want to fight as hard as you can until X and then shutdown gracefully to have a chance to explain to your users why your system is going down. If you wait until you get shutdown, you have no way of pushing a graceful shutdown anymore.


I'm saying that it is curious that Oracle would be acting before the FTC began enforcement, if this sourcing is actually accurate.


Oracle has no interest in running afoul of the US government at all. Their internal culture in many ways views them like that of a quasi-government institute. So in thus case they probably are feeling responsible to actually be the ones enforcing the law.


I imagine shutting down ByteDance is not like flipping a switch. They have a mountain of infrastructure and “shutting down” could mean nuking the data or otherwise getting it out of their cloud entirely. If it has to be done by a certain date you’d need to start nuking things well in advance to be absolutely certain you’re in compliance by the deadline. I’m surprised the shutdown happened as late as it did if this wasn’t a completely staged crisis.


That’s a trivial problem to solve though. Just push an update to the app that shows the „we were banned“ message if a specific API endpoint isn’t reachable anymore (and general internet connectivity is still there of course). Then you can operate as normal until your servers are forcefully shut down.


That's not true, distributors of the app are fined. Meaning, very specifically, app stores.

From (2)(a)(1):

> (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

>

> (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

Possession of and providing non-distribution ( / maintenance / update) services to a "Foreign Adversary Controlled Application" are not in any way a part of the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act". Operative services are specifically and intentionally excluded from the list, to ease the burden of enforcement.


Are you saying serving content to the application would not count as maintenance?


Legally, no, it doesn't


Are you a DOJ lawyer or Federal judge?

If not, what is your basis for your conclusion?


I don’t use TikTok but the “down” page mentioned you can still login to download data. What’s the cost and scope of providing that feature without US cloud providers?


They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.


They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.


> formal understanding

I think you mean "campaign promise."

No legally significant action has been taken between now and yesterday.


Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or are you simply assuming there have been no such private discussions?


Trump isn't president yet, so any such conversations are not legally significant actions the way the person you're responding to meant.


Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for these companies to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.


There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.


Any violation and associated fine would proceed though court. I assume such a statement of intent would have meaning there.


That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble. If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as they believe it would have been executed by the incoming Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.

That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue operating, but it could mean the parties involved wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We just don't know until and unless it goes to court.


I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue? Obviously you understand that that if you create a contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future, then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.

If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable Trump to break the contract if he so chose without consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no reason that would imperil the companies having a rock solid defense against enforcement penalties in the interim period.


Such a contract - where someone promises to use their (future) presidential powers in exchange for some consideration from the other party - would be illegal and unenforceable, because someone paying the president to exercise executive powers to their benefit is literally just bribery.


In what universe does this apply to the president? If the president promises a company to do X, it’s not a contract. I’m not even sure the president is allowed to make a contract with a private entity to give them a political favor.


There is no law or precedent to prohibit someone from engaging in contracts because of holding public office. In fact there is even an ongoing movement to try to get more politicians to do exactly this so that campaign promises would be more likely to be executed. Again qualified immunity would probably make these contracts impossible to enforce against a politician, but in this case the agreement would work as a defense if for some reason Oracle et al faced legal threats or fines for continuing to work with TikTok.


You can create contract, but contracts require consideration, and I don’t see how you do consideration in a case like this without it being a bribery.


Trump => Agrees to avoid interim enforcement against companies facilitating the operation of TikTok + legally clarify matters when he gets into office.

Companies => Agree to temporarily facilitate the operation of TikTok until matters are further clarified.

I don't see anything particularly controversial here.


I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care.

It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.


An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.


Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case


The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension. (In this specific case)


Trump isn't president and the ban went into effect before he was. There's no legal extension possible anymore under this specific case.


It’s federal law, and the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

The courts on the other hand can permanently block laws.


> the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

no, the president can pardon individuals convicted of a criminal law, which is not at all what you describe here


Most famously Richard Nixon received a pardon by Ford immediately after his resignation but before any prosecution. Also, it’s any federal law, the exception is impeachment and nothing else.

So, pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution. They may not pardon someone for something that hasn’t happened, but as long as there in office when the crime is committed that’s more a technical issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[7][8]


> pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution

Is this really the case? Has this specific situation ever been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Burdick v. U.S. doesn't address "pre-pardons" or blanket pardons. Nixon was never prosecuted or tried.


The specific situation applied in Burdick.

The court ruled they could reject a pardon given before prosecution thus avoiding the need to testify about someone else. It would be a moot point if the pardon was invalid.


To be clear "they" (who can reject a person) is the recipient of the pardon, not the court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

But that's not the relevant part of Burdock for this thread.

The relevant part is that an (accepted!) pardon does apply before indictment.


Presidents can pardon classes of people. Carter pardoned all people guilty of evading the draft during the Vietnam War. So Trump could pardon everyone involved in certain companies or involved in a specific act.


This feels like a stretch, I don’t think it’s a pardon they are after. Pardons don’t really work like that.

TikTok I think was going for more of a shock factor. Maybe even without talking to Trump they have credited him as restoring it, might seem weird for him to “go back on it”.

Or maybe it’s to put him in good light.


Trump issued a statement saying that he would issue an executive order after he became president that retroactively would dismiss any fines which satisfied both TikTok and the app hosting providers (Apple, Google).


Also, the technical bit serms entirely on app distributors.

This is the internet.


The President can offer pardons for criminal matters. However, he is required to uphold laws passed by Congress, particularly bipartisan ones affirmed by the Supreme Court.

For example, why would the President have a veto power if he can simply post-facto ignore laws they pass?


He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that) and good fucking luck ever getting the required votes to remove him from office. He can do whatever he wants with impunity.


> He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that)

No, SCOTUS ruled that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution.

---

On many, many occasions, the courts have ruled executive actions invalid.

On no occasion, have courts assigned criminal liability to a President.

SCOTUS explicitly affirmed that as the rule.


I'm sure the SCOTUS that said "your crimes are legal" will stand up to him now


IDK.

My comment was just re "SCOTUS also affirmed that"


SCOTUS pointed out that they weren't crimes committed by Trump. We then saw the political prosecutions of Trump backfire spectacularly in a way that strongly suggests that the balance of the US population agreed with the SCOTUS call that the prosecutors didn't have a case that Trump had to answer for.


There’s a bit of a “live by the sword, die by the sword” situation going on here.

Presidents can’t just ignore a law categorically (although they regularly do, e.g. DACA, DOMA, etc.) On the other hand, presidents can certainly decide not to prosecute a particular entity under a particular law. That’s the heart of the executive power versus the legislative power.

Here, Congress wrote an extremely specific law that applies basically to one company. Which isn’t impermissible. But it’s also not clear to me that Congress can insist on immediate enforcement of that law without crossing effectively usurping the executive power and directing the President to prosecute a specific company at a specific time.


Technically, the President + Executive can do whatever they want, including prosecute parts the Executive!), until the President is either impeached or replaced by election or incapacitation.


Technically yes. But what I mean is that, even in terms of the spirit of the law, the situation is a bit murky, because Congress effectively wrote a law that requires the executive to prosecute a specific company on a specific deadline.


That's actually one of the reasons the president has a veto. If the president doesn't want the law to pass, then there isn't much point in passing it unless Congress makes a show of force with the 2/3rds majority, which is also the majority needed to remove him from office.

Similarly, one of the reasons the president has a pardon power is because he doesn't have to enforce those federal offenses. E.g. imagine that a president without pardon power instead offers "plea deals"/settlements for a $1 fine or concocts vacuously lenient house arrest enforcement.

The original constitution basically accepts that there is very little you can make a president do, and it instead formalizes what would otherwise be a gray area (it does have plenty about what he can't do). Some of this has changed over time especially as the judicial branch has granted itself more power.


The entire system is built on checks and balances. For instance even a simple district attorney can choose to effectively nullify laws within his jurisdiction by not prosecuting violations - something that has regularly happened in contemporary times. Even the final check - the lone juror - can also nullify laws by similarly choosing to acquit alleged violations regardless of the evidence.

You could obviously create a far more functional system but it would probably be far less stable. The reason you have all these checks and balances, from top to bottom, is that the Founding Fathers were obsessed about the risks imposed by both a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the minority. And non-enforcement of something effectively comes down just a continuation of the status quo, making it difficult for any group to [openly at least] impose their will on others.


You're not wrong but the only real recourse for an executive that fails to uphold the laws created by Congress is an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.


Theoretically that's true but in practice there is ample precedent for Presidents refusing to enforce specific laws. In one instance (DACA) the Supreme Court ordered a President to continue a previous President's official policy of not enforcing certain laws against certain people!


Don’t confuse the oath of office for a binding agreement. The president is supposed to uphold the law, but they are only held accountable by impeachment.

They even have broad immunity while conducting official acts up to and including breaking the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)

“Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.”


It obviously irrelevant whether the law was bipartisan or not, and the Supreme Court never "affirmed" the law--it denied a preliminary injunction.

As to upholding laws passed by Congress--just two days ago, Biden did his last round of student debt forgiveness, bringing the total up to $188 billion.

I’m not trying to “both sides” this. I’m just saying that the standard you’ve articulated for how promptly the president needs to act on a law like this isn't the standard we apply in practice. The government tries to reach deals like this in lieu of enforcement actions all the time.


Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban?

I understand that there was this law. It's a political statement because of the political message being sent out to the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a political statement.


The law did not require them to suspend the service.


The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally


The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.


No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend service.

It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.

ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date and stop working (for people who already had it installed on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to work just fine.


>and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.

And they were forced to use those hosting providers (oracle) by the US. It's not like investing loads to bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve them well either. They'd still lose the US business relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning things around like they might've. Why bother?


What do you mean, "no"? You agreed with me.

The option you describe is another among the several options available.

Unless you're saying that the service shutdown would not have brought Bytedance into legal compliance, which would be a novel assertion.


But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.


Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only theatre.


But bringing the service back again today is not following the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if you've now changed your mind.


Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.


A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was the last day of his administration, so enforcement by Biden wasn't even possible)

This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.


Police behave how government leaders want them to. Government leaders changing their statements changes the actual behaviour of police.


It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a great demonstration that people want their Tiktok.

* Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning it

* Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does

Seems like a smart move to me.


I like how it is just a given that he is just going to ignore term limits.


I'm Canadian, I forget about term limits

Plus has there ever been a US president that came back after a term away? Usually when a "new" president comes in you figure they'll be running again next time.


Grover Cleveland also had two non-consecutive terms, and the twenty second amendment is pretty clear in it's language that you can only be elected to the office of President twice.


They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed


That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.

If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.


In 2012 a coordinated action by 100,000 sites (including major platforms like Reddit, Wikipedia and Google) all went dark for 24 hours to protest SOPA, which was successful in killing the bill. Some only changed the color scheme and added a message but others shut down.


> which was successful in killing the bill

the protests had no bearing on the outcome of the bill. most of us didn’t even know they were taking place.


Sorry what?! I was in Australia and even from here it was obvious it was happening. Maybe go back refresh your mind on old HN posts. Sorry not meaning to be rude but the digital protests of the day were very significant. Lots of media coverage and site blackouts and banners and average punters waking up to the interruption. Stacks was going on. You can even watch Internets Own Boy doco where it’s covered.


having lived through that period and relying on the internet to do my day job i didn’t notice.

also if you look at the history of the bill, there is no mention of public opinion at all. They shelved the bill due to lack of agreement.


Well, speak for yourself, not "most of us". On 01/18/2012 the HN front page was basically nothing but SOPA/PIPA content:

https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2012-01-18

As for your claim they had no effect, that's not what the sources from the time say—on the day of the protests 13 senators announced their opposition, including 5 former co-sponsors:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/pipa-support-col...

When you lose five co-sponsors in one day and that day happens to coincide with the internet shutting down, I don't find it very credible to try to claim that there was internal dissent all along.


I very much noticed. It was all over pretty much every major site. I'm surprised to hear of anyone online that day that didn't notice.


Uber has used this tactic many times in their early days. It mostly worked because citizens got used to cheap rides and got mad at their government for taking it away.


> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

OnlyFans did something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans#Restrictions_on_porno...


That wasn’t a political statement. Per your link, it was a belief that that could not continue the credit card payments while staying in compliance with the law.


> flip-flop so quickly

The timing and phrasing make it clear that this was planned and negotiated in advance, and the shutdown was just for show in order to be able to post a memo about how "President Trump" saved it. If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours between midnight and noon on Sunday morning.

The point of the stunt was to persuade large numbers of younger folks that the Ds are the bad guys and Trump in particular is the hero. And it'll work as designed.


> If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours

A spur of the moment decision would be more like Trump than a lengthy negotiation.


What’s the evidence of this? It seems highly plausible but do we have any proof besides speculation?


My partner uses TikTok and was greeted with a message today saying that DJT saved the app. That isn't possible because he isn't president yet. It's all very embarrassing.


I don't think I will be able to handle 5 more years of this without moving in a very remote place and limited information streams.


I’m going to go found a place I’ll call Galt’s Gulch for maximum irony.


I'd pay good money for a newspaper that would go out of its way to avoid mentioning Trump, Musk, and all these other highly exasperating people, unless it's completely unavoidable (e.g. "Trump declares war on California").


Also the CEO of TikTok is going to sit directly behind Trump at the inauguration. It's not even subtle and half the point is that it isn't subtle - bend the knee to Trump and you'll be taken care of, is the message. We operate just like Russia at this point.

Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.


I got an internal ad on Facebook telling me to connect my TikTok account the other day.

https://imgur.com/a/yCOpifC


We’ve also started seeing TT ads on Reels, and a brand new blue-checked Facebook account appeared on TT yesterday and rapidly gained 100Ks of followers.


I'm old enough to remember when selling out the American people to the CCP would have been a career ending scandal.


Selling them out to the Iranians? Pardoned and the person involved got a job on Fox News (Oliver North).

Selling them out to the Russians? Well, it worked fine last time, a bunch of minor figures went to jail, but the boss remained untouched.

So why not sell out to the Chinese? Remember, it's only illegal when a Democrat does it.


> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.

Well, that makes this interesting. The bill also allowed a 90-day extension if they found a buyer and were in the process of finalizing it.

This may put this cringe ByteDance stunt and Meta/Zuck's pandering to Trump into more perspective. The Hero coming to save the day with a magical 90-day extension. As long as everyone plays their scripted part. On the other hand, it's probably just a funny timed coincidence that will pass in 3 months

[added] The president would have to approve any sale of apps caught in this law


> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.

Wait, if this is truly what this outcome was about, this seems.. huge? Can you share more information about that?


It's possible for people who aren't currently the president to do things.


“Be President while the other guy still is” is not one of them.


There isn’t enough time for the current President to enforce this. A convincing pledge from the incoming guy that he’ll allow them to continue operating is all it would take. How you get a convincing pledge out of this guy, I have no idea, but apparently they believe it.


He's also telling them to buy a shitcoin. It's all very well believing he magically saved TikTok, but I think there's a lot that will be real hard to swallow. The cycles between FA and FO are getting really, really quick…


it turns out that sometimes what you find out is that nothing happens after you’ve fucked around.


And sometimes it’s the rest of us who get to find out.


The current president already said he didn’t intend to enforce the ban anyways.


That doesn’t mean much when he’s about to go.


TikTok operated in a way that did not need to happen. Biden's administration was explicit in that the enforcement of the ban were to be performed by the Trump administration. Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday. TikTok are now operating based on this information.

Who is currently in charge of the oval office is an irrelevant quality.

Note that the ban was not really on TikTok, but the ownership. TikTok could be owned by many other parties in the world. It just can't be ByteDance or parent/subsidiary which has ties to China.


> Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday

How does that work? If congress passed a law banning TikTok how can the president just override it for 3 months? What's to stop him from overriding it for the next 4 years?


It's outlined in the bill and is explicitly stated.

I've lost interest in this topic unfortunately, but its pretty clear even past all the legalese with the terms defined from what I remember.


I read the bill and didn't see it stated anywhere. I'd genuinely appreciate a link or even a copy/paste with the relevant section that I could look up on google.


But that is essentially what is happening. There is long-standing convention for the president elect to not step on the sitting president's toes prior to inauguration, but Trump has been bucking that convention this time around. This is just an impossible to ignore example.


It’s actually illegal for people who aren’t currently the president to negotiate as if they were.


Declaring your intent to create an executive order the next day is not a negotiation


He's bragged several times that he saved TikTok. Trump also said the Israeli peace deal wouldn't have happened with him, which is an admission of breaking the law that states you cannot act as president without being president.

But Trump already knows he is above the law, so none of this matters.


Israel already broke the peace deal btw, but as with a lot of Israel news, you'll be unlikely to see that reported on.


That does not take away the fact that Trump was directly negotiating with Netanyahu before even won reelection.



Okay, fine, let's play this game.

What did Trump do to get TikTok back online?


He agreed to extend to TikTok an executive order that grants it a 90 day extension, as the law explicitly allows the President to do.


Doesn't the law explicitly require TikTok to have a convincing deal in place, and to be able to show proof of that to Congress, before such an extension can be granted?

At 17:05 in this video (and I believe discussed once elsewhere but I can't find it/don't want to rewatch it): https://youtu.be/pZkoV5UnPvw


> as the law explicitly allows the President to do.

I think this is debated, which is why Apple and Google may not bring back TikTok to the stores... at least that's what I read.


I don't know but TikTok itself said it was because of him.


No idea and we might never know, but, do you think ByteDance would just lie about it?


Trump agreed to use a provision in the bill to offer a one-time 90 day extension on enforcement: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...


Yeah... there's no such provision. The only mentions of the president in that bill are:

1. In the definition of a "covered company". The bill itself already saus that TikTok is covered; this is only a provision to add other companies to the list.

2. In determining what qualifies as "divestiture" to have the ban lifted. That's described as happening when -

> the President determines, through an interagency process...

"TikTok wrote me a big check and said nice things about me" isn't an interagency process.

Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.* He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon. He can't grant pardons, he can't lift law enforcement decisions, and he can't write executive orders. The promise of an executive order, even if such an order would be lawful tomorrow (which I can't understand how it would be), is not a legal document that can make something legal today.


> He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon

For very weak definitions of power. Zuck didn't wait to bend a knee until the inauguration. Because power.


Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn to read:

(a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

(b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act.

(c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—

(1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination.

^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from.

===

> Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.

Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition power.


Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that something is part of the constitution based on absolutely nothing. Bro … after what Biden and Kahmahlah did, there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden and Kahmahlah did.


Why did you misspell the VP's name 3 times like that? It kinda makes your entire message seem very unserious.

Now, how exactly did the outgoing administration "try to abolish the constitution"?



I missed that one: how did Biden snd Harris try to abolish the constitution?


https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-natio...

> Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear

> In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."


That has literally nothing to do with attempting to abolish the US Constitution.


If a president can decree amendments, the Constitution means nothing. If you can break the constitution to change it, as Biden attempted, then how do you have a constitution?


paste your article into chatgpt and tell it your thoughts. I've very curious if you can convince it you have a valid point. More so, you may come out more educated and everyone wins


https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004

> “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.

Pointing out that Biden, in contradiction the the US constitution, tried to alter the US constitutions. I don't make the facts, they are what they are.


I’m not sure what to say other than that you have a bizarre interpretation of the article. I mean in no way, shape or form is Biden trying to abolish the US Constitution.


The US Constitution does not allow the president to decree new constitutional amendments.


The ERA was introduced in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972.


If the ERA was dully ratified, then it would not need Biden to decree it law. If Biden can decree an amendment to the constitution as law, then the constitution has no meaning.


It has been ratified though.

Biden is just pointing that out, no?


No.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004

> “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.

Don't post fake news.


It is very clear that it is Trump doing the negotiations around TikTok. The current administration is at this point powerless.


If you mean because they used the term "President Trump", that honorific is for life. See, for instance, the recent passing of President Carter for a million examples. If you mean because he couldn't have executed legal actions yet - he could have offered private and legally binding statements to all the major players - Oracle, Apple, and Google.


> he could have offered private and legally binding statements

No, he couldn't? It's not even clear he'll be able to do anything with an executive order when he is sworn in, but President elects certainly can't.


I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for the heads of the various companies involved to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.


> A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office

Would not be legally binding. The President cannot unilaterally bind the U.S., and he is free to make and break statements of intent.


Presidents are allowed to offer legally binding political favors in private?


Calling it a political favor is quite silly. He stated he was likely overturn it for months now, but the public indirect phrasing was probably not sufficient for the involved actors to feel was sufficient to act on, a private statement of definitive intent would be.


Oh maybe the very clear messaging in the app and by the inbound administration, who is heavily supported by tech elites. The same people who have been very open about their feelings towards opposition and who and what they support. No one will come out and claim this was the case, but its not like they are trying to hide it either.


Do you need to eat shit to know it is shit?

Isn't it enough to see, smell, you have to touch and eat it repeatedly so you can conclude: yes, this is shit. You are now expert in shit eating and the professional opinion is that this is really shit, no mistake is made here!?


If that’s the case this was totally bungled, the app was down for less than 12 hours, overnight during a weekend. If they wanted maximum effect Trump wouldn’t have tweeted until 5pm eastern to give people a chance to come to terms with the shutdown actually happening.


They want to be able to livestream the inauguration tomorrow on Tiktok.


Sure, but TikTok coming back online around this time would have also allowed for that & been more effective propaganda for Trump as savior of the app.


It gave people all of Sunday to react to the shutdown on TikTok ahead of Monday where the focus will be the inauguration.


They shut down long enough to get attention but not long enough for people to find another platform


It had to have been a PR move.

The Tik Tok in-app notes for "shutting down" and "we're back" both referenced Trump by name. I doubt they would do that without his explicit consent.

Trump beamed his name and heroics directly into the eyeballs of 50m people before he even took office. That wouldn't have happened without the brief blip going dark.

Odds are good he said he'd pardon them (which is a whole different story) but ensured they'd go dark for a few hours, either by withholding his guarantee or by directly coordinating it with them.

This is Trump. It's always about him. If we haven't learned that we haven't learned anything.


Ha ha are you serious? Trump is a fragile-egoed narcissist.

He's not even in power and already everyone's sucking up to him.


like your conspiracy theory, lots of entertainments in it.


The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.

The ban was the stick and selling it for a lot of money was the carrot. ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.


> The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.

Seems like the goal pivoted recently - the goal is to keep TikTok Chinese and have them supporting the corrupt regime taking over the US, similar to other foreign adversaries have in the past


> ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.

shortly after Trump tried to force bytedance to sell its shares during his first term, the Chinese government passed laws to include the recommendation systems used in social media into the export control list. bytedance thus won't be able to sell tiktok without approval from the chinese government.


Does anyone have a citation for this? Probably higher quality if it's in Chinese even if I have to machine translate it. Because that would be a clear pointer of suspicion.


2020 report by nyt, paywalled of coursed

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/technology/china-tiktok-e...

the official export control list in Chinese

https://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/202312/W020231221620858841394.p...

it is on the 29th page, with export control number 086501X, item 18.


OK, that's pretty convincing. And it's interesting how much other stuff is in there like OCR for Hanzi!


It's like real life is playing like a shitty TV series. Constant cliff hangers, plot twists that never resolve....


Agree, and the velocity is amazing, it's really hard to keep up with the shenanigans. In my opinion, it will have a negative impact on the economy, education, birth rates etc.

Government should stay out of the way, and I don't want to hear about it every ten seconds, on the other hand, I don't want to have to read the news every five minutes to audit what they're doing.


I think it's obvious that US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum. They were never prepared for an actual ban and the resulting fallout. Now that it's obvious they won't divest (which should have been obvious the entire time), they flipped


> US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum

I worked on the bill. Everyone assumed it would hit the ban, get an extension, and then either remain banned or get sold to Elon, Ellison or a Brexiteer.


Can you point to a lawmaker who has flipped?


Here's what Chuck Schumer said:

"It's clear that more time is needed to find an American buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans of so many influencers who have built up a good network of followers" [1]

The deal was divest or ban, not look for "more time to find a buyer". My point is they were never prepared for an actual ban.

[1] https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1880007290830688609


> they were never prepared for an actual ban

This is have your cake and eat it too politics. I can pointedly say that Schumer’s office isn’t surprised Bytedance ran out its 180 days.


Won't somebody think of the influencers.


I think the bigger point is there are a lot of young people making really decent money on TikTok. (I know a few of them.) The result is a lot of push back from a lot of people who are effectively loosing their jobs. This is probably more clear to politicians now than it was a year ago, since the actual “threat” of the situation set in for more people.


As popular as the platform is with the younger demographic and the voting preferences of said younger demographic it's political malpractice for democrats to not try to at least salvage some face in this whole ordeal, whether you think the blame is misplaced or not.


Here we have a group of people that have given up on their duties re: checks and balances because following orders is easier. What a surprise that they're spineless in other ways too.


> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?

There's too much effort and uncertainty involved in actually creating a problem and then actually fixing it.

It's much easier and more reliable to create the perception of a problem by promulgating lots of FUD, then engage in performative theatrics to nullify the FUD and proclaim the problem fixed.


What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?

If you create an issue, and solve an issue, indifferent of the issue being real, you'll be credited with solving the issue. It's ridiculous at this scale


> What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?

Well, it would be the same as the distinction between real and imaginary in any other context.


Perception is reality


No, it very much isn't. Reality is reality, and people's perceptions of it are often quite incorrect.


The phrase is not a defense of some hyper relative worldview. It’s commentary that the perception of the many facts, which of those are highlighted, which are ignored, which biases shine through and which narrative wins, etc., at the end of the day, is the reality you must deal with. Reality is downstream of facts.


You can be passed out in the back seat but a car crash is still going to kill you


That’s not what the saying means, obviously -_-


But the meaning you're presumably referencing isn't applicable to this conversation.


Not exactly the same but ChatGPT's firing and rehiring of Sam Altman seems to be in the same vein


Union strikes may fit that bill.


> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.

Trump was against Tiktok before he was for it.

He was also against crypto currencies before he released his own.


[flagged]


Crypto is a very easy way to funnel bribes to the sitting president, who has immunity for actions taken in regards to "official actions".

> Hey, I bought $1,000,000,000 $TRUMP coin, can you ease up on $RegulationImpactingMe?

> Regulations are official actions, so sure I can take a look-see.


> Crypto is a very easy way to funnel bribes

Interesting... are you able to expand on this? My understanding is that the $TRUMP coin runs on Solana, which similar to Bitcoin runs on a public ledger and therefore offers limited anonymization (basically none).


It doesn't matter if it's anonymous. What's important is buying $TRUMP is a tax-free method with plausible deniability to increase Donald Trump's net worth.

Anyone is free to make an "investment," there is no disclosure requirement, and an accusation of bribery (even if one could be made legally against a sitting president, which SCOTUS tells us it cannot) would require a provable quid-pro-quo.


trading crypto isnt tax free if it isnt in tax deferred or tax exempt entity

and when transferred in a way that would otherwise require a disclosure to a politician or campaign, the crypto asset and transaction would also require a disclosure

if there are other benefits that the crypto world is superior at, then thanks for describing a use case and value proposition relevant on a geopolitical scale to the largest nations on the planet. a lot of people here cant imagine any because they arent the target audience


I don't think the idea is to buy crypto locally, and then donate the crypto to Trump. The purchase is the donation. You just wake up one day and decide to purchase some shitcoin. The seller happens to be Trump. He walks away with your USD, and you can keep what you bought or just throw it away.


Thank you, you expressed this more clearly than I did.


I mean, isn't this the same as donating to Trump?


> I mean, isn't this the same as donating to Trump?

Not in a legal sense. In the US, donations to politicians and campaigns are tightly regulated. Foreign entities aren't allowed to donate. Donations have to be reported, are subject to limitations, etc.

In crypto, none of that applies. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can invest essentially unlimited funds into a memecoin. It's not technically a donation because you're buying something, and it's not technically going to Trump, because you're buying from some pseudonymous entity on the blockchain. Nevertheless, the money goes to Trump. It's an ideal venue for laundering bribes.


Good point, though lobbying groups are often endorsing and donating to candidates and are backed by sentiment in other regimes like AIPAC. I guess $TRUMP is just creating another backdoor around foreign donation regulations.


In the US, lobbyists representing foreign interests must register as such. Failure to register is a crime: that's what Michael Flynn was convicted of, before Trump pardoned him.

In contrast, any foreign party can purchase $TRUMP.


> trading crypto isnt tax free if it isnt in tax deferred or tax exempt entity

Sure, good luck enforcing that. Although crypto isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous. In any case, you aren't subject to the same taxes as a traditional gift about $20000 and you aren't subject to the same regulation as campaign contributions.

> and when transferred in a way that would otherwise require a disclosure to a politician or campaign, the crypto asset and transaction would also require a disclosure

That's the beauty of the grift. "Investing in $TRUMP" isn't a transfer to a politician or a campaign: it's a purchase of a memecoin on a public blockchain. It's a way to give money to Trump without meeting the legal definition of "giving money to Trump."

> if there are other benefits that the crypto world is superior at, then thanks for describing a use case and value proposition relevant on a geopolitical scale to the largest nations on the planet. a lot of people here cant imagine any because they arent the target audience

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I think I just explained a pretty use case for crypto as a means to buy political favor. Other benefits of crypto include: (a) purchasing illegal goods, (b) defrauding naive consumers.


the hotels were functioning that way through the entire administration last time

and the $DJT stock is already doing this as well

What you’re pointing out is just not a unique aspect of crypto or that interesting in the Trump portfolio of “things vulnerable to being used as kickbacks in a currently legal way”


> the hotels were functioning that way through the entire administration last time

Sure, but it's a matter of scale. It's difficult to rent a billion dollars worth of hotel rooms.

> and the $DJT stock is already doing this as well

Yep, that's another scam.

> What you’re pointing out is just not a unique aspect of crypto

Yes and no. Crypto offers a uniquely unregulated and perhaps unregulatable means for malfeasance. NASDAQ tickers are tame in comparison.

Fwiw, the moral of the story is not "all crypto is evil" but rather "crypto should be regulated like any other instrument in order to prevent fraud" and perhaps as a corollary "sitting presidents shouldn't be issuing their own meme coin."


Absolutely. How dare he be so innovative in his bribes. He should have gone the respected route and started a foundation.


A foundation? Kamala got a $20 million "book deal". Obama took the Clinton method to ridiculous extremes getting paid $400k for 30 minute chats of minimal content, repeatedly.


Was that book deal paid by anonymous foreign actors in untraceable crypto currency? No?


> People aren't allowed to change their minds?

Sure they are, but they should explain why they changed their minds. In the case of meme coins like $TRUMP, it's hard to defend crypto as an investment or as a currency, which leaves the obvious reason: it's a scam.

In the case of Trump, I'm sure he was all for crypto as soon as he realized that he personally could make money from it. Same goes for his NFT grift.


not sure why people still try to understand Trump after all these years him being a public figure. he does absolutely NOTHING and EVER which does not help his bottom line and benefit him personally. he’ll fucking steal money from a children’s charity which is about as low as humans go - the lowest scum of the earth to make a penny. hence him “changing his mind” (he was a democrat and was sucking clinton’s dicks for decades) has nothing to do with me and you changing our minds based on something we learned - for him there is a single thought - how can I profit from it.


Don't attempt to anthropomorphize Donald Trump. He's more like a lawn mower with daddy issues.


he’ll leave office as world’s first trillionaire so pretty expensive lawn mower


Ah yes, the Robert Mugabe school of economics, a surefire way to create a nation of billionaires.


> Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly

Trump has never had any issue he has not been on both sides of. He has no ideology, he does what benefits him in the moment at any given moment.


According to the people I work with, all they care about is kids in cages. They value “tough talk” on immigration above anything else. Being influenced by Russia or China don’t even register.


> all they care about is kids in cages

To clear, they want kids in cages. Did I read that right?


> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?

A number of internet services (e.g. Wikipedia) shut down temporarily on Jan 18, 2012 as a political statement against SOPA.


Heh; I thought you were talking about trump the first few times I read this.

He appointed a bunch of corrupt Supreme Court judges, and they upheld an obviously unconstitutional law (bill of attainment). Now, on his first day in office, he gets to be a hero by unilaterally deciding not to enforce the law.

So, moving forward, (1) we should expect increasingly unjust and draconian laws, and (2) as long as you do what Trump asks, you can break whatever federal laws you want.

(Zukerberg, Bezos and Trump have already gotten in line for this.)


> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly

I wish people would understand that Trump has no ideology. Over a span of decades, Trump has been critical of liberals and conservatives, often at the same time. He's praised conservatives and liberals, often at the same time. His political positions are aligned with whatever benefits him the most.

He doesn't care about making life better for the middle class. He doesn't care if immigration restrictions are relaxed or tightened. He doesn't care about whether or not transgender people have access to health care or can or can't serve in the military. He only cares what positions on those issues will benefit him and his friends at any given time. And if tomorrow holding the opposite position will benefit him more, he'll switch, just like that, and somehow convince his base that's what they believe too.

Trump is the one who was championing the idea of a TikTok divestiture or ban, back when he was president the first time. He's only changed his mind on that because opposing the ban is better for him now.


He who can destroy a thing controls that thing. Expect the new administration to have great influence on tiktok policy and content.


Already do and users are noticing. Ads have been introduce in a really obnixious facebook/instagram style and contebt moderation is more facebook/instagrem esq as well. It would surprise no one on the platform if meta has already aquired it, and it just needs to be announced.


100% it's what happened. And the craziest part is that it worked because Biden went along with it. It's easy enough to argue Trump played hardball to negotiate for any divestiture that may occur; because that was his goal all along. The narrative/pundits can spin this easily in his favour.

Either because they gave in to the ploy, or because they were unable to close a TikTok deal, the Democrats look incompetent here. And Trump gains favour in the younger demo (that he's already pretty strong in) AND with SMB because he gave TikTok more time.


oh - and his true audience all along: an American oligarch is about to get at least half of TikTok for a steal.

Anyone doing graft, corruption or just questionable wealth accumulation in the millions or single billions is going to look like small ball for at least the next four years.


Yeah it's just decent strategy on their part (I hate to say). Even if they don't profit directly off of the TikTok deal they look like absolute bosses for being able to "give" Americans what they wanted all along.


I dont think we know the actual range of motives for shutdown. Oracle may have forced it, for instance.


Epic Games sorta did this to Fortnite, but the reversal wasn't quick


The SOPA and PIPA protests were basically that


> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?

In Trump's world, I think you should cause a problem, blame somebody else, and then fix it.


moonshine stopped working also. I guess it was under the same parent org. They all back to working now.


Is it a big political statement to shut down a couple hours before the deadline of shutting down?

The app stores removed the app in accordance with that timeline too.


No. It's a big political statement to include political messaging and plead to political figures when you shut down. Then to praise those political figures afterwards is additional political messaging.


No, many users are sharing the theory that the downtime was to allow meta or google to take over the backend. Content delivery is different on the app now. For example, ads being served during videos not between videos.


There was no deadline, the app stores didn’t need to remove it.

The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump administration to review, they had no reason to shut it down. It’s purely to force Trumps hand a bit.


> As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw- ful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v...

Please do some research next time before spreading lies.


That is simply a topical remark within the judgement denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would have been required to be taken immediately offline, as the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet moved on the matter.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520...


It clearly states it will be unlawful for companies (e.g oracle for cloud, google for app distro) to provide services to Tiktok


From the White House Press Secretary:

“It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them.”

Please do some research next time before accusing people of spreading lies.


Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not create liability, unless given an explicit assurance.

I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They still had liability.

Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing court cases all the way till the last minute even though they’ll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable to take a risk averse approach for a company.


The Biden administration said it wasn't going to initiate enforcement proceedings in the last 24 hours of their administration.

It did not, nor did it have the authority to, waive the apps stores requirement under the law to do that. To remove the potential for future enforcement actions (up to 5 years in the future) punishing them for failing to comply with the law. Neither will Trump even once he is president unless and until amongst other things ByteDance signs legally binding documents that they will divest from TikTok within 90 days.


> Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.

"Rep. Mike Waltz calls out the Biden campaign's TikTok account: 'They should be ashamed'":

* https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346831867112

Waltz chosen as Trump's national security advisor:

* https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5187098/trump-national-...

And currently "Trump security adviser doesn't rule out continued Chinese ownership of TikTok":

* https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-security-adviser-do...

So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Trump going soft on China was predictable.


Trump's biggest backers, Elon Musk, Jeff Yass...etc. all have ties with China.


People need to understand that politicians (dare I say everywhere?..) are just business man with dressing. They simply put up a show for people to win the votes and once they get elected, do whatever they can to make an extra buck. Trump, a convicted felon is certainly no different..


Was it? Apart from Elon’s dependence on China market for Tesla sales, I didn’t think so. Trump has been talking a lot about going hard against adversaries. The TikTok ban is something he supported. And it’s more popular on the right than left.


What am I missing.

Trump as a private citizen, can't issue a statement and automatically over-turn a law.

If someone wants to enforce the law, they still can. It's still on the books, and Supreme Court upheld it.


[flagged]


It literally was? Everything that happened in the last 24 hours specifically has nothing to do with any legal requirement or deadline. It was a show.


FWIW, it was at least year in the making, but I will admit that the execution did add a proper show vibe.. as would be expected from a reality show star.


The US presidency fully devolved into a mafia this time around, no more mincing words or operating behind the scenes. Just like a mafia don demands, all fealty should be in public and fully subservient, no half measures.

Till now, commenting or criticizing someone was fair game, not anymore. Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive. So no more commenting in public too. Not sure what this does to the press. Over time people will be trained to think free press is bad too.


The US president is not all-powerful. If he was, Trump would not have been forced to hand over power to Biden in 2020.

Certainly he is petty and vindictive. But there have always been petty and vindictive people in power, and people that were too scared of them to speak their mind. But there have always been those who still dare to criticize people in power.


Trump resisted handing over power after the 2020 election, and to date, he has faced no significant legal consequences for those actions.

Given that lack of accountability, is it unreasonable to suggest the stakes will be even higher in 2028? If there were no consequences last time, why wouldn’t there be an even greater effort to challenge the outcome, should the need arise?

This isn’t a binary issue of whether the president is all-powerful or powerless. It’s a spectrum, and since 2020, we’ve objectively moved further toward the "all-powerful" end. The absence of meaningful checks and consequences has set a precedent, making it harder to draw the line in the future.


> Trump would not have been forced to hand over power

Can you re-read your sentence and ask yourself if this is a normal thing to say in a working democracy? That this is even on the table means Trump IS a dictator. He was just too dumb to know how to make it work in 2020. From a non American lens, it actually looks like you handed power to a dictator because he won "fair and square" this time. I have trouble believing the US will have another genuine vote in my lifetime.


even if someone wishes they were a dictator of the USA doesn’t mean that they are


It does mean he will behave dictatorially, and make dictatorial decisions as president as far as the system will allow. Previous experience (his last presidency) shows he will take every opportunity, and has a lot of leeway in your "democratic" system.


Surprisingly it doesn’t take a lot more when the political opponents don’t do shit (Biden x Garland, anyone?) or when the people either actively supports dictature or decides not to vote for… reasons.


> or decides not to vote for… reasons.

The main reason being a refusal to stop assisting a genocide [0]. Seems like a legit reason to me.

You might want to ask yourself - why was supporting Israel more important to Harris than winning the Presidency and defeating Trump?

0 - https://www.commondreams.org/news/harris-gaza


Courts and Congress are a main check: he appointed 3 Justices, and Clarence Thomas is corrupt + qanon wife, that's 4 of 9. Already when congress has gone against him like with the shutdown he wanted at the end of Biden's term, Musk, the richest man in the world, threatened to primary them, and we'll see much more of that.

Nazi salute Musk also did a $1 million a day lottery system for republican voter registrations with some loopholes and got away with it.

We're pretty fucked.


This is just a publicity stunt to capitalize on his popularity among Gen Z: https://www.newsweek.com/young-people-most-optimisitc-about-.... Trump is simply picking up the ball Biden fumbled.


>Till now, commenting or criticizing someone was fair game, not anymore. Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive.

Tons of people criticize both of them. In fact, both Musk and Trump have publicly criticized each other, and have now made up.


Republicans have learned to weaponize attention far better than Democrats. Negative attention is still attention, and where Democrats shrink from "gaffes" or criticism, Republicans just recognize that public criticism is still a form of attention. Even among each other. Whoever gets the most eyeballs, top stories, and headlines for longest wins this game.

Vicious, vindictive, petty, nonsensical, random, and trolling tactics are all strategically useful in this media landscape.


Republicans have the benefit of not having guilt around saying things that are patently not true while the Democrats are still trying to act within norms.

It is asymmetrical warfare on the truth.


It astounds me that anyone is capable of sincerely believing this.


Why? I think it's a very reasonable take. Democrats dont go around talking about people eating dogs.


Republicans don't go around saying a President in obvious mental decline is "sharp as a tack." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHE3jnOAR80

Democrats literally just lost an election because of their tremendous ability to lie to themselves: Biden isn't incapacitated; selecting candidates based on race/gender doesn't compromise on quality; immigration has no drawbacks; etc.


I take the sharp as a tack comeback, that is fair.

Regarding selecting based on gender compromising or not compromising candidate quality is a vastly more compex question. It is sad that a lot of people have a simple answer to themselves. That immigration has no drawbacks I have not heard anywhere, seems like a position you assign to democrats, not one they hold.


> Regarding selecting based on gender compromising or not compromising candidate quality is a vastly more compex question

Except Kamala Harris put the correct answer to that question into stark relief. Everyone knew from 2019 that she was a terrible campaigner and manager. But Biden picked her as VP and then Democrats picked her as the nominee because they were able to lie to themselves that she was an accomplished individual rather than someone who had moved up within California uniparty politics because of her race and gender. Selecting people considering race and gender in an effort to “make history” or correct past wrongs is a deeply misguided practice. But I didn’t expect it to blow up in people’s faces quite so quickly and spectacularly.


Sorry, but this is a fantasy of yours.

You only are able to say so because Trump won - with hindsight.


I will add that the media infrastructure around the Republicans have also managed to convince most of their viewers that "up is down" in a way that I would not have believed possible (but should have from reading many books about the Third Reich etc.)


And yet you fail to make any logical refutation of it.


You cannot reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.

Politicians lie, constantly. All of them. Yes, even the ones you like. Saying Republicans lie and Democrats don't is practically self-propagandizing, convincing oneself of something they'd prefer to be true.

ALL politicians are equal-opportunity liars: if there's an opportunity, they will lie. Sometimes for power, sometimes for money, sometimes because they owe a favor. It's a big club, and we aren't in it.


> Politicians lie, constantly. All of them. Yes, even the ones you like. Saying Republicans lie and Democrats don't is practically self-propagandizing, convincing oneself of something they'd prefer to be true.

> ALL politicians are equal-opportunity liars: if there's an opportunity, they will lie. Sometimes for power, sometimes for money, sometimes because they owe a favor. It's a big club, and we aren't in it.

If you genuinely believe this, how do you determine which way to vote?

It's not like you can call a particular set of politicians (country or party) pathological liars and then take seriously election promises from any member of that set.


I vote for those who lie to me the most convincingly about having my family's best interest at heart, and who claim to have goals for the country that align with my values.

That's about the best any of us can do.


Well, it's coherent I guess. But you are just selecting for being convincing. Why not try to decide what you think each candidate will actually do, rather than caring about what they say, when you describe their lack of honesty in terms I would reserve for just the worst of them?

(Considering where I grew up, "the worst of them" would mainly be Boris Johnson: even if I don't like many of the other better-known UK politicians, they at least seem to say things that reflect their actual value systems, whereas Johnson… https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-what-di...).


It's a response to the fact that democrats can create widespread misperceptions through their control of traditional media. For example, in 2018, 66% of Democrats believed that "Russia tampered with vote tallies to get Donald Trump elected President." https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20383-russias-imp.... Hillary Clinton never went out and said quite that. But the barrage of coverage from all angles in the media created the same impression as if she had said that.

In another example: how many people know that, after the 2000 election, the Supreme Court found 7-2 that Al Gore's proposed recount strategy was unconstitutional? Nobody knows that Al Gore had employed a strategy of hand-counting ballots only in counties he had won to find more countable votes that would swing disproportionately in his favor.[1] The media completely blacked that out, and everyone now only remembers the 5-4 part of the decision addressing how to fix that constitutional violation. There's more people under the misimpression that Kathleen Harris or Jeb fixed the election in Bush's favor than understand the sneaky maneuvering by Gore that precipitated the whole mess.

[1] E.g. if Gore won a county 2:1, then statistically, every vote rejected by the machine that could be hand counted would be twice as likely to be a Gore vote than a Bush vote. Gore found a loophole in Florida election law that allowed him to use that principle to find more votes in his favor by seeking hand recounts only in two large counties he had won.


Another example of whataboutism, this time about a guy who ran for presidency many many years ago. He's the one who gave attention to this now obvious unconvenient truth. Back then they criticized the energy use of his house, which still compares very pale against the consequences of this, still swept under the carpet today, inconvenient truth.


MAGA didn't happen in a vacuum. Two republican presidents have been elected in the 21st century, and after both of their first elections, the media fostered widespread misperception of the legitimacy of their wins through selective reporting of the truth. For people coming into the leadership of the GOP now, folks in their 40s and 50s like Vance and Johnson, remember the 2000 election very well, but not the Walter Cronkite era when the media was more even-handed. That inevitably shapes their own approach to communication.


Undermining the legitimacy of the new President to try to diminish his power seems common lately, e.g.:

- Clinton only won because Ross Perot siphoned votes away.

- Bush didn't win, the Supreme Court handed him the Presidency.

- Obama isn't American.

- Trump was only elected thanks to Russian interference.

- Biden didn't win, the election was stolen.

It's a tactic that gets used because it seems to work, at least in terms of rallying one's own troops.


And Kennedy is a Catholic, so you're just voting in the Pope. And van Buren is a Dutchman. This isn't new.


Correct, but now there will be not even a semblance of bipartisanship. It's not even enough to be a member of the same party, you must pledge full unwavering loyalty and never criticize the administration or face the consequences of being ostracized, attacked, power revoked, and prosecuted by a weaponized DOJ. The media, both social and legacy, are fully on board now too, the gloves are off.

Also, you can now commit crimes and then pledge loyalty in exchange for a pardon. See Eric Adams.


>you must [...] never criticize the administration or face the consequences of being ostracized, attacked, power revoked, and prosecuted by a weaponized DOJ.

It's not "never". JD Vance published a book criticizing Trump, and still got picked as VP.


By contrast, Tulsi Gabbard--who was the vice-chair of the DNC at the time--was run out of the party and tarred as a foreign asset for opposing Hillary Clinton and her desire to start a war in Syria.


> > Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive

This is great. Sociologist tells us that any given person can only have 150 friends maximum, same goes with enemies , it will be very long 4 years for whoever sits in the 150 enemies at any given time, but all things considered they aren't people too dissimilar compared to Musk and Trump.

While petty revenge goes on, policy as always gets ignored and problems emerge (inflation, other pandemic etc) and the whole thing will collapse because at the end of the day even a perfect and experienced captain won't be able to steer perfectly a 400M people strong super tanker such as the US, let alone a vindicative one busy lashing out on his enemies aboard.

It will end up like the Evergreen in the Suez canal.


Trump said yesterday in his speech that they want a model where the US owns 50% of Tik Tok and has some oversight.

This is pretty much the exact same setup that US companies get in China. This seems like a pretty decent compromise actually. Free speech advocates win because people still get to use the service, but national security folks also get a win because they can monitor its use by a foreign government and shut things down if it’s being used maliciously.


I don't want to live in blue China, especially when the oversight is the Trump administration.

I wouldn't call required government control a free speech win.


I mean it’s a compromise, usually both sides are unhappy when a compromise is made haha.

There are real concerns that the CCP could use it as a tool to manipulate and spy on the American people. There’s a good reason why Tik Tok is being banned in many countries around the world. Also a good reason why China bans and tightly controls American social media companies in their country.

But if we agree to compromise, we can ideally find a balance where the average American is best served.


If the we earnestly believe that why would we need ownership and exclude most other corporations? Why aren't we pushing for FEC like oversight?

Seems to me that this strategy is as best not earnest and at worst only serves those in power.


Well I think people at the top consider China to be special, same thing happened with the sale of Grindr to a Chinese company. That was stopped by the US government because it could easily be used by the CCP to do bad things like blackmail Americans.

I do believe that both sides of the political spectrum agree that there is a special threat posed by Chinese involvement in American social media. This TikTok ban was pushed forward by both sides of the aisle and has had support from people in both administrations.

Social media in general is ofc toxic and terrible for all kinds of other reasons, but WRT national security TikTok is so huge now that it’s getting special treatment.


> This is pretty much the exact same setup that US companies get in China.

I mean, no? Meta, Google, X, Snap and American social networks in general are banned in China.


It is the setup for all companies which are not banned in China lol


Companies are not fungible in the eyes of a nation.



How is this at all related to what the person was saying? They made no mention of financial corruption. They're explicitly talking about speech and press.


Money, speech, press... The mafia has many avenues of control...


I think it's pretty clear Hunter Biden has been sleazily profiting from the position of his father.

What's missing is Joe Biden's involvement.

If your politics are against Joe Biden, I guess you can just kind of imagine that he must have participated.

IMO, we should find corruption in politicians flat unacceptable, even if -- especially if -- they are on our own "side".

You may want to become concerned when the president can unilaterally contravene laws passed by congress and validated by the Supreme Court.


> You may want to become concerned when the president can unilaterally contravene laws passed by congress and validated by the Supreme Court.

It seems prudent to say given this seems to the prevailing narrative: this did not happen. The law is still in effect and Tiktok is still banned[0]. The service shutdown that many experienced yesterday was one Tiktok performed voluntarily, presumably in protest of the ban. Tiktok's decision to restore the service was one they could have made at any point after the shutdown, regardless of any statements made by the then-President-Elect.

0: If you don't believe me, uninstall it from your phone and re-download it. ;)


additionally, wasn't the "whistleblower" who made many claims about Hunter Biden's laptop found to be blatantly fraudulent? dude was later convicted for making false statements.

IIRC the Romanian and Kazakstan ones were also heavily thrown into doubt.

whole thing reads like whataboutism


That's exactly what it is. The people breathlessly compiling a list of "what abouts" for this type of corruption need to look past their nose. 2 things can be fucked up at the same time, and one of those things being fucked up isn't an excuse for the other thing to continue being fucked up.

Also, when one of those "what abouts" is verifiably false, as in the case of the guy who made claims about Hunter's laptop, it's completely meaningless. Those people are comparing to something that doesn't even exist.

It's a stupid, losing game that way too many people want to play.


Comparing Hunter Bidens sale of his name to the Trump organization as if it's the same is so laughable.

How many pump and dump crypto scams is Joe up to? "Media" company stock sell offs? Hotels he puts government employees in so he can charge their stay?


At the risk of "what about"-ing, this list is laughably small compared to the Trump's bribe docket.

Neither of these are acceptable, a president and their associates should not be able to personally enrich themselves from the office. I know this disclaimer won't matter to someone who just really wants to argue, but this does absolutely nothing to move the needle for me. Pointing to someone else's corruption to excuse Trump's corruption is just a losing battle, you will never convince me to care about one when the other is just allowed to fly.


This seems to imply that the president elect can make unilateral guarantees contravening US law. That’s a surprising outcome.


Prepare yourself from many more surprises from this lawless regime. The US supreme court has already said he is immune from prosecution.

The future has been clearly telegraphed, and who is going to stop him?

In his own words years ago, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would find excuses for him.


He’s also the guy that triggered all of this by signing a presidential order to change TikTok ownership during his first run.

Does he have a coherent position on this that these actions support?


Does he have a coherent position on anything?


His main policy seems to be to show the world that he's a big man with big genitalia. And in fairness, he is quite successful at that because much of the world thinks him a gigantic dick.

I'm not really joking, because that really does seem to be the underlying philosophy in what he does: it's whatever he thinks makes him the "big man tough guy". Trying to analyse things beyond that just doesn't make much sense.


Not particularly "show the world" because he's been very demonstrably weak internationally. He's a showman who makes very bold sounds, but his actions show that he will give in to China on Taiwan, like he gave into them on Hong Kong, like he gave in to Russia on Ukraine, like he gave into North Korea on nukes...

Now on Taiwan, he's already stated previously that he will _tax_ China if they invade Taiwan. This contradicts long standing US policy of not stating exactly what action the US will take in the event of invasion, and has had the result of pushing up projections of exactly WHEN China will invade Taiwan to be within the next two years, during Trump's presidency.

The only thing that will possibly make this change is as a condition of financial supporter Elon Musk, who needs those NVIDIA cards that come out of Taiwan so he can pursue his religious mission of winning the AI race. And that's only if TSMC manufacturing capabilities can't be dragged out of Taiwan and set up elsewhere in a sufficient timeframe to reduce the impact if China were to invade Taiwan.


> he's been very demonstrably weak internationally

What you or I view as "big man tough guy" doesn't necessarily align with what Trump views as "big man tough guy". In Trump's view, "solving" the problem of Taiwan one way or the other, when so many other presidents have "failed" to do so, makes him the big man. Whether he completely screws over American interests in the process – never mind the people of Taiwan – doesn't really enter in the calculation.


[flagged]


> Another angry man child’s take on his politics.

That's also a decent summary of his politics.


More power and more flattery, that's it.


To accumulate power for him and the people he likes


No, he does not.


The law gives him some power to grant a 90-day reprieve, iff he makes some 'certifications' to congress w.r.t. progress toward compliance.


That's only before the ban, not after. The ban is already in effect. This is a violation of the law, plain and simple, and the law does not allow for an unbanning after the fact. The 90 extension could have been done before the 19th, but not after.

Simply put, this is law breaking. The President-elect is making promises to break the law day one. This is not surprising.


Look I don’t want to carry any water for him whatsoever, but I think it’s going to be essential to couch criticism in the rule-of-law setting we think should prevail. To that end, the text of the relevant section is:

> With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that, […]

where “would otherwise apply” is pretty clearly not predicated on the preceding section having come into effect or not.


Thank you for this post.


At least post the rest of the relevant text:

>the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that-- (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;

>(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and

>(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.

It seems highly unlikely any of those criteria are being. Trump is not even suggesting it, never mind providing receipts.


Totally, he has to claim to congress those things are true. Claims are … not his weak point.


Both liberal and conservative presidents have made choices about whether or not they will enforce particular laws passed by Congress. This is nothing new. It's just getting a lot more media attention than most instances of this have gotten.

(A very common example: many people in the US can walk into a store and buy marijuana without fear of prosecution because the last several presidents -- from both parties -- have chosen not to enforce that particular federal law.)

Certainly the courts can (and sometimes do) get involved, but the only thing that can force the executive branch to act is for the House to impeach the president, and for the Senate to convict. And the House is not going to impeach Trump over this, or pretty much anything.


I doubt judges would take your side on this interpretation of the law. Wanna put some money on this bet?


He chose the judges.


He'll probably be choosing at least two more as well.


I don’t think it matters.

Scenario one: We get an FDR style leader to fix this stuff after a massive economic collapse and public backlash. (As Biden posited in his farewell address.) This will either lead to court packing or (like last time) the lapdogs on the court will accept their new leashes.

Scenario two: The federal government suffers a partial or complete collapse, and the US ends up being city-states or like the former USSR. (I think this is more likely, and also what Putin wants, assuming he can’t keep Trump under control.)

It’s also possible we’ll continue to have fair elections and the courts will stop abusing their power. This seems the least likely to me.

Under all other scenarios, we’re completely screwed and the current courts will already go along with it.


> This seems the least likely to me

So you think there's a >50% chance that one of your scenarios will happen? Would you like to put some money on that bet?


It's like 2016, all over again.


Its a stretch to consider this law breaking. The president either does or does not have authority here, but the only one breaking the law would be ByteDance.

Biden wasn't considered to have broken the law when courts threw out his plan to forgive school debt. The president tried something, the courts found the order to be invalid as the rule didn't fit the current laws, and everyone moved on about their business without claiming the president broke the law or implying he should have been charged.


If you are surprised this happens given Jan 6 events you have been living under a rock.

There is a good chance there will be no more fair elections in US.


This was a pretty big talking point during the election, towards the end I didn't go a day without hearing about how Trump will end democracy or how democracy was on the ballot.

What the hell happened? For anyone that honestly believes that, why pack up and go home when Trump wins the election?


What do you mean "What the hell happened?"

The question is about how we handle the coming elections four years from now, not the previous one. If he's going to be a dictator it will only be possible when he's in power.


I was specifically talking about claims that Trump is going to end democracy though. There wouldn't be elections in four years, that's a moot point.

By what the hell happened I mean what happened to those claims? Did people not believe then, or are they resigned to the election results meaning we just accept the end of democracy?


>Did people not believe then, or are they resigned to the election results meaning we just accept the end of democracy?

If I revolt against the government that is 100% breaking democracy.

If I wait and see what the next admin does, that is maybe 50% (fake numbers) likely to break democracy.

You can think DJT is bad for democracy and also think it is more bad to try to toss out an election he won.


> If I revolt against the government that is 100% breaking democracy.

If you're revolting because democracy is already lost, or the loss is imminent, you weren't breaking it.

> You can think DJT is bad for democracy and also think it is more bad to try to toss out an election he won.

Not if you truly believe democracy is doomed with his election. I don't believe that, but if someone does I don't see how waiting for it to happen helps.


There are often elections in dictatorships, as you may find out.


America spoke and said they wanted it, what more is there to be said? If there was marching in the streets, it would be torn to shreds by the online grift sphere.


To be fair, America said "it really doesn't matter who is president". Which is arguably worse.


If I honestly believed democracy would be ended by the next leader I would be marching in the streets, or better yet finding a group forming a rebellion.

Ending democracy is a very serious thing. It shouldn't have been used hollowly by either party, and if it wasn't hollow then people should be standing up to stop it.


We did stand up, that was the entire 2024 campaign. We really truly believe the guy who incited the insurrection in 2021 that ended the history of peaceful democratic transitions of power in the USA is going to do more of the same damage to democratic institutions in 2025. Given what happened on 1/6 I don’t know why you see that worry as hollow.


I see it as hollow mainly because the democratic party and many of its supporters seemed to go silent after the election. I can only speak for myself, but if I truly believed he would end democracy in a few short years I'd be doing whatever I could to stop it. I say it seems hollow because I just can't imagine it being a serious, real threat and also rolling over.


> I can only speak for myself, but if I truly believed he would end democracy in a few short years I'd be doing whatever I could to stop it

We did do whatever we could to stop it. We tried every avenue available.

We tried impeachment twice, but he was protected by his party. The first time they protected him for extorting a bribe from a foreign government. The second time they protected him for inciting an insurrection. We tried the DOJ but he was protected by a federal judge he appointed, and supreme court justices two of which he appointed granted him sweeping immunity from prosecution. We tried to constitutionally disqualify him from running on the basis he incited an insurrection, but again he was protected by judges he appointed. Our last recourse was to run on a pro-democracy candidate during the election but the people rejected her.

So we tried everything. But the election was fair. He won. That's that. We tried everything else, and anyway at this point it's too late without resorting to a violent coup, which supporters of democracy won't do. There are no other pro-democratic avenues left to protect democracy from Trump. Sucks it turned out this way, but at least you can't say you weren't warned.


The missing piece of the puzzle is that the DNC does not represent the people, it represents corporations who are just fine with Trump. Your average person is very concerned and is likely to think that Trump does represent a very real danger to democracy. The corporate apparatus that is the DNC made some noise about it to see if they could rile people up into voting for them and that failed.


People expect liberals to align with the left because that's where they've been in recent times. But liberals align with globalists, police, and corporations. Leftists always predicted that when the time came, liberals would run to the fascists. And what do you know there they were: Biden, Obama, Bill, Hillary, Kamala sitting right next to Trump at the inauguration in unity. Message received.


> or better yet finding a group forming a rebellion.

You mean like the two assassination attempts vs Trump? Which only made Trump's power greater and consolidated more support?

Aggressive actions literally make Trump stronger. That's literally failing to work and we're living in the fallout of that. I'm not sure how to stop Trump but inciting violence seems like the wrong answer to me.

Besides, its the US Military. We all know that its impossible to actually rebel vs the Army. What do you want a rebellion to do? Grab a couple of AR15s while the Army literally brings in tanks?

-----------

Aggression is a failing move. But so was a political campaign that tried to convince people of Trump's dangers. So that's that. Or are you seriously trying to bait people into arguing that more violence was the answer here? Did you literally forget the election already?


Aggression is often a failing move, yes. And I'm not saying we should go there. What I am saying is that I don't understand what happened to everyone claiming democracy would be over, and that if the threat is real I don't see marches solving it.


Because Aggression is a failing move.

What more "marching" do you want? The only escalating point now is violence because all the marching from 2024, 2020 and all other years accomplished nothing. Indeed: even just "marching" in 2020 was apparently "too violent" as Black Lives Matter (a march to protect African American lives) somehow got twisted by Donald Trump and his politics into a "violent" march.

I think it makes sense that people are cautious about the next steps. But what the hell are you wanting people to march for? To deny the election and cause a liberal Jan 6th event? What are you even talking about? Even if people did that, it'd only play to Donald Trump's persecution complex and he'd get more power anyway. And its not like anyone would be marching to force Biden or Kamala back into office, neither candidate is popular enough.

------

The actual move is to retreat from Federal level politics and hold firm at the State-level side. If the Federal Government is lost, the focus should be on more local bastions and defenses.

The fact remains: the resistance wants to be peaceful and non-violent. You've taken away the voice of the peaceful ones by labeling them as violent at every turn. So we know marching doesn't work anymore. Its not like the movement is dead, its just resting for now as people figure out what the new plans are. But its clear that a direct assault vs this ideology isn't working.


I think we may be talking past each other here.

My point at the start of this thread was that, in my opinion, the level of certainty with which people claimed Trump's election was directly voting for an end to democracy does not align with actions since the election results were in. Either people didn't believe those claims even while saying it, they have since been convinced otherwise, or they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is over within a matter of years.


> they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is over within a matter of years.

My point is why is the latter so hard to understand?

There isn't a way to resist directly anymore (especially as both Biden and Kamala are insufficient to serve as the focus of a hypothetical coup). There are other plans in place to have resistance at the State levels, where it will be more obviously beneficial.

Any most of the escalations we can do are once again, counteracted by the simple history that is the assassination attempts. It's clear that the path to violence to stop this madness is closed.

--------

It's not the time for direct confrontation at the federal level on this subject. It's the time to pull back and defend at the State level.

Have you seriously thought about how to stop this in any way in the past few months? Your questions are so shallow it's making me think you only have talking points to share. After an election loss like that (not a landslide, but still an obvious loss), there is no coup potential or other kind of way for the Democrats to even try to hold onto power.


> Have you seriously thought about how to stop this in any way in the past few months? Your questions are so shallow it's making me think you only have talking points to share. After an election loss like that (not a landslide, but still an obvious loss), there is no coup potential or other kind of way for the Democrats to even try to hold onto power.

Not quite sure what talking points you think I have to share here, I thought I was laying out a logical flow that doesn't make sense to me.

Circling the wagons at the state level is a good short term approach, though if successful I don't see how it doesn't first run into the unfortunate need for violence.

As a country we have spent the better part of a century moving a large portion of powers to the federal level. States can't just ignore that and do what they want without repercussions. Maybe more importantly, I don't see how a stage could continue to run democratically as part of the union if democracy is destroyed at the federal level, there would just be too much conflict there.


> they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is over within a matter of years.

This point. The point I've been quoting specifically.

I've stated why this is an incredibly shallow perspective on repeated occasions. I'm not going to repeat myself.

> As a country we have spent the better part of a century moving a large portion of powers to the federal level.

Tough shit. Democrats lost the Executive, both branches of the Legislative, and the Supreme Court. Democrats have literally nothing in the Federal level anymore. Or have you forgotten how this election has gone?

Its all Republicans here on out at the Federal level. The ONLY plan is to fight at the state level to protect those close to us.

The Federal level has been completely and totally lost. The ONLY plan that makes sense is to build bulwarks at the state level, and if that isn't enough then maybe even at the municipal / city level.


Because it was mostly being astroturfed. Democracy obviously isn't going to end in any way, shape, or fashion under Trump.

And so the organizations pushing these lies need to move onto the next lies to keep the rage and fear going. Maybe this time around it'll be Trump is secretly controlled by China - must be why he reversed the TikTok ban.

His campaign is large enough that there's probably some guy in it, no more than a degree or two separation away, banging a Chinese spy a la Eric Swalwell. Tie it to Trump, start a new committee of absurdity and away we go.

It'd actually provide some logic to banning TikTok which was just politically absurd when Trump would predictably reverse that, to much fanfare.


Trump incited an insurrection based on lies in 2020. He's on tape demanding a state election official 'find' the exact number of votes he needed to win. His appointed judges have preemptively given him immunity from criminal prosecution. He routinely calls for physical violence against those who loudly disagree during his rallies. He has said he's willing to use the military against political opposition. He offers to deregulate (selling the health of the people) in exchange for campaign funds (which he spends like his own personal bank account). There has never been a president so openly corrupt and vitriolic in the US.

Trump is the most willing and equipped to strike a fatal blow to Democracy.

People have already marched against him. Now they rightly fear for their safety.


> His appointed judges have preemptively given him immunity from criminal prosecution.

I get your point here, though if I'm not mistaken they defined the boundary of what any president can be legally held accountable for while in office. It wasn't a blank check or a one-off rule only for Trump.

> People have already marched against him. Now they rightly fear for their safety.

Marching really isn't the answer if democracy truly is at stake, unfortunately. I very much dislike Trump and don't expect him to do well by our country, though I don't personally see enough to think he is actually going to tear down our democracy. Hopefully that's right and we don't get to the point of actually having to defend it.


I’m really curious what kind of activity someone could exhibit that would cause you to believe they could end democracy.

Genuinely. Because for me, it’s enough for someone to incite an insurrection, and to argue in front of the Supreme Court it should be legal for him to use the military to murder his political opponents. Why does that not read “wannabe dictator” to you?

Because I gotta say, if you’re wrong and he wants to tear down our democracy, the time to defend it was the election. Now we just have to deal with the fallout.


A president can't end democracy just because they want to. There have probably been many presidents in the past that would have liked, in their secret heart of hearts, to be dictators. But they didn't end democracy because they couldn't, because our Federal government has a system of checks and balances that limit the power of the president.

He was president once, and was not able to pull off a successful insurrection, or murder any political opponents. And he probably won't do so this time.


The whole point of starting an insurrection, sending the vote back to the states, and using alternate slate of electors was this was something that is so far outside the reach of normal courts that it would have stalled the process enough to possibly grant him emergency powers, declaring himself as president.

Trump doesn't need go full militant to end democracy. He could literally just cause enough bullshit in the process to where the two choices are either let things continue as he wants them two, or mass civil unrest and economic shutdown, and most people don't have a sense of nationalism to pick the latter. So US dies a death by 1000 cuts.

The only hope is that there are more people like Pence on the Republican side that when duty calls, they do the right thing.


> But they didn't end democracy because they couldn't, because our Federal government has a system of checks and balances that limit the power of the president.

Checks like Congress, a majority of which is terrified to stand up to him even after an attempted coup and comically bad cabinet appointments?

Or the courts, many of whose judges he appointed and shamelessly render verdicts (often on his behalf) without recusing themselves over conflicts of interest?

Or the executive branch, of which he is the head, and can cycle department heads like an episode of The Apprentice?

> He was president once, and was not able to pull off a successful insurrection, or murder any political opponents

The US passed an entire amendment to its constitution to prevent insurrectionists from repeated attempts to take over. The fact that he attempted to do so is already treason. One doesn't have to succeed to be disqualified. Otherwise what's the point of the amendment? Just keep trying until you succeed.


Yes exactly those checks. Even if your characterization of the independence of the three branches of government is valid, the circumstances are far from unique in history.


In the past, there was always a threat that if a president got out of line, he could be impeached. But the impeachment clause has been rendered inoperable by Republicans.

The first time Democrats tried to impeach Trump, Trump argued in front of the Senate that he's allowed to commit crimes, including extorting bribes, as long as he does it for the good of the country. On that basis, the Senate acquitted him. So now the the standard set by Republicans is that even in the case of extortion and bribery, the president should not be removed from office as long as he had a patriotic heart.

Worse than that, the Supreme Court affirmed that the president has sweeping executive immunity, making any prosecution of an impeachment case impossible; the Executive controls all of the information Congress would need to prosecute the impeachment, and as we saw during Impeachment I, Trump is fine to just flout congressional subpoenas. Furthermore with the new doctrine of Presidential Immunity there is no judicial recourse for them to compel production of the documents they would need to prove an impeachment case.

Finally, we further know impeachment is impossible because when they tried it, Trump argued the correct recourse was the courts. But when we tried the courts, Trump argued the correct recourse was impeachment. That cannot be the case in a functioning system.


Any president could end democracy, as could a many other groups. I really don't have a checklist of behaviors a la the DSM-5 that would allow me to know someone is likely to end democracy.

I do think trump is capable of it, as where others in the past. I just haven't seen enough to think its an legitimate enough threat to have made me warn others that it will happen. I could always be wrong.


But you would agree that making the argument that it's fine for you to assassinate your political opponents would be a flashing red flag that person does not believe in the the ideals of democracy. I mean, generally someone who agrees with democracy would not argue, even for hypothetical purposes, that the highest power in the land reserves the right to murder with impunity people they don't like for personal political gain.

And so if someone does make that argument in front of the highest court in the land with the intent to avoid accountability for inciting an insurrection, as Trump did, maybe that person would be a bad person to give immunity from criminal liability because of their outlook on the scope of their own power.


Can you link a source on the "using the military to murder political opponents" thing?


“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-hell-us...


Do you understand what others (who may not agree with you) think of your arguments when you use extremely hyperbolic language to describe things that do not appear to justify such?

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an excellent tale I regularly read to my children. The moral is one of the utmost importance.


What argument is being made by the parent? It’s a direct quote.


Trump argued in front of the Supreme Court that his notion of presidential immunity covers the right for the president to use Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rivals:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...


I also see it as astroturfing or a hollow threat of not voting for the "right" person. That said, if anyone honestly believed it I don't see how they could not sit by and watch it happen.


> That said, if anyone honestly believed it I don't see how they could not sit by and watch it happen.

And what, exactly, is someone supposed to do about it? Legally. Besides voting, obviously. That ship already sailed.


There are plenty of examples of the people stopping their government when it went to far. Its not easy and should always be a last resort, but the people should never just roll over and give up if the threat is real - especially when a seemingly large portion of the population viewed it as a real threat.


While i dont think Democracy will end under Trump, it is manifestly not obvious that it won't.

The president-elect literally floated the idea that his voters wont ever have to vote again if he won.


This was clarified on Snopes; he was referring to groups such as fundamentalist Christians who rarely vote, urging them to come out this one time and vote. Not very eloquently worded, perhaps, but certainly his intent, as explained by spokespeople and by himself in subsequent interviews, was not to shut down voting.


Anyone trying to make sense of Trump's words has as much credibility to me as people who interpret tea leaves, or the Bible. Judge his actions; trying to divine anything from his words is about as effective as chasing wild geese.


I judge every politician by their actions, not their words. In Trump's case, his words are more "salad-like" than most, but his actions generally speak pretty clearly.


Right, he did incite that attempt to violently overthrow the peaceful transfer of power on Jan 6.


Where is it going to come from though? The news networks that propagated this nonsense seem to have realized this election cycle that its over for them. Comcast just spun off MSNBC and CNBC. That means they are going to milk it for whatever scraps are left and then toss it in the trash. The neoliberal left does not really have an effective online platform like the right and the progressive left have because they spent years dismissing online.


> For anyone that honestly believes that, why pack up and go home when Trump wins the election?

You're wondering why people who are pro-democracy are respecting the outcome of the election?


Well yes, are people willing to accept a loophole that democracy is so important that you must respect one final election ending it?


If results of elections aren't respected then the democracy is already over.

Pro-democracy people will want to find ways to strengthen or preserve democracy (or at least limit the damage) in the face of threats to it, not blow it up themselves.


Elon Musk literally held an illegal sweepstakes paying people to vote in Pennsylvania. And given Elon Musk's position in the new government, its clear that his sweepstakes has led to direct benefits from Trump. It was direct quid-pro-quo and no one is doing anything about it.

The courts were too slow to stop the sweepstakes and now that Trump is in power, we all know Musk would be pardoned of this crime. So no one is bothering to prosecute.

The election fraud already happened. Now tell me who the hell is going to punish the troublemakers?


It seems USA is completely blinded by some immaterial force. How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his bootlickers? Why is USA refusing to fight (or at least help allies substantially) against Russia, which commits crimes on the level of Nazi Germany in WWII?


The US activity supported similar atrocities in Palestine, and there was bipartisan support for that.

I don’t have an answer to your question.


>. How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his bootlickers?

Because the reality is, a good majority people in the USA have a very good life, even the lower class, contrary to what the media may have you believe. So when the majority doesn't show up to vote, its because they think it doesn't matter who is in charge.

These are the people everyone should hold primarily responsible for whatever bad things happen. The MAGA type crowds are always going to exist in one shape or form, and its everyone's responsibility to vote so that the bad side doesn't take power.


It’s of course always possible that you are the blind one. Maybe one day you’ll grow out of it.


> How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his bootlickers?

Not sure if you are serious, but the problem on both sides of the disagreement is caused by the illusory nature of consciousness, and is exacerbated the fact that our culture does not study that phenomenon despite how incredibly important it is.

This is what people should be arguing over rather than yet another consequence of it.


Not a popular topic in certain contexts, apologies.


You're still thinking of him as a president and not as the new monarch of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around for more than one term and incrementally greater and greater authoritarian powers.


Hes no spring chicken so that remains to be seen. I do however worry about who is waiting in the wings to ride on his coat tails.


The surprising part is that people are still surprised. Trump can do whatever he wants and there will be no pushback. We are talking about the guy who launched a meme coin a few days before taking office and made $50B+ overnight.


I think those chickens just haven’t come home to roost yet. His wife launched her coin today. There is no way this isn’t being looked at closely. Impressively quick start to the new shit show.


> There is no way this isn’t being looked at closely.

Who's going to look at it? Whichever sycophant ends up being AG?


He is now immune from prosecution, financial crimes will be pretty low on the list of things that would breach the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter.

I could see a world where the lawyers have cooked a progressively more egregious set of legal violations to test the bounds of the new authority granted by the Supreme Court. Up next is probably a mandate that foreign diplomats/us government employees stay at trump properties at exorbitant prices for “security purposes”.


Up next? They already did that the last term, when Pence was forced to stay at a Trump property in Ireland. They actually had to go out of their way to stay there, so it cost all of us more in taxes, and Trump ended up with the profit. Totally fine, some consternation in the press, but ultimately Trump profited and no one did anything. So yeah we will see more of that in the next term.


Closely by whom? Tomorrow, Trump and his sycophants will control the DoJ.

If you're talking about a future administration, we've already seen what happens when Trump leaves office and people try to hold him accountable: absolutely nothing.


> I think those chickens just haven’t come home to roost yet.

People have been saying that about Trump's antics literally his entire life.


Exactly. He’s a convicted felon, and so what? It doesn’t matter. What’s an investigation into a meme coin going to do, other than cost taxpayer money and give Trump the chance to say more sound bites?


A wide open door to get foreign political donations (see: bribery) in plain sight.


Is the US dollar going to survive this presidency? Honest question. I can easily see a path to replacing it with enough political/VC will.


> Is the US dollar going to survive this presidency? Honest question.

1000% yes. Not only is it going to survive, but it will probably beat out all other major fiat currencies over the next 4 years.


Beat them out in what way, or by what metrics?

If you're comparing against other major fiat currencies that's a pretty easy bet. The only way the dollar loses meaningfully, or fails completely, is if it is no longer the reserve currencies given priority over those other fiat currencies. This has to happen eventually but it seems pretty safe to say it won't happen within four years.


Here’s the law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

No, Trump can’t legally postpone or give reprieve to TikTok. The time has passed for that.

Once Congress has enacted a statute and the President has signed it into law, the executive branch must enforce it. An executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears to grant the President such discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the President to “undo” or pause the ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court.

That seems unlikely considering the Supreme Court already rules on the matter.


That's not the law that passed. The law that passed is https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815 (lengthy law -- see DIVISION H—PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT), page 62 in the PDF.

Also, both the House and the Senate have pending legislation to extend the deadline.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/391 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/103


Thank you for correcting me


The executive branch is responsible for enforcement of laws. He could just choose not to enforce it, no?


I think replies to this will be one of two:

* Legally the executive is not granted this power.

* But in practice they are because who's going to make them?

The entity responsible for enforcement always has this power. It's why DA races where the platform is essentially law nullification by way of non-enforcement have been happening for some light criminal justice reform that can't get through the legislature.


The executive branch has a clear history of selectively not enforcing laws, so there is clear precedent. The most notable recent example is that the last three presidents have all chosen to not enforce federal law on marijuana in states that have chosen to legalize it.


That is a somewhat different scenario as the battle over marijuana laws would boil down to a state's rights issue. Many states have claimed authority over deciding whether marijuana is legal, effectively claiming that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction on the issue.


That doesn't change the fact that the president has instructed the DoJ to not enforce a federal law passed legally by Congress.


Sure, I'm not arguing that. The context is just different enough to be important in my opinion.


Historically it would have been congress or the Supreme Court. The issue is that no one seriously expects them to do anything against trump.


Why would Apple or Google want to take the risk? They are not TikTok, they don't stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars of value.


Because they want to appease the new President.


Surely this is not the first case of a president not enforcing a law.

So then presumably this goes back into court, and then what?


But that's the point isn't it. He's testing the waters.

There will be no consequences and therefore few limits to his power.

Welcome to the new dictatorship.

I'll post this here for posterity:

He'll find a way to get a 3rd term in power. Maybe he'll claim the constitution means no 2 consecutive terms, maybe he'll just ignore it, start a war, whatever.

But I'd be willing to bet on it. In fact, I just might...


A little bit difficult to get the president elect who is to be inaugurated today (the 20th) when that same president elect in his own words reasonably believes that the 2020 election was stolen.

I think we're all very certain that a thorough investigation into the 2020 election will clear up any concerns about it.


Trump can choose to not enforce the law. That is of course illegal, and a high crime, but who is left to stop him?


It's not illegal, nor a high crime. It is in fact established precedent that this is in the purview of presidential power. This is why FBI agents are not raiding every marijuana shop in DC or the states that legalized it: since Obama, every president has chosen to instruct the justice department not to enforce federal law in this matter in those states.


Marijuana shops were deemed legal on the state level, you are comparing a real conflict in federalism to ignoring a congressional and supreme court ruling with massive national security implications on day 1.


You're splitting hairs. The constitutional framework is clear - federal law has priority over state law.

The only relevant aspect is whether the president has an obligation to enforce federal law or not. And the precedent is very clear: they do not.


> The constitutional framework is clear - federal law has priority over state law.

It is anything but clear and the subject of ongoing legal battles. https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-...

Again, you picked an example of a real conflict between state and federal law and compared it to an unambiguous law passed by congress confirmed by the supreme court that the incoming POTUS will simply ignore.

No, that is not normal. Feeling like i'm going to be gaslit everyday for the next 4 years so i'll save that statement somewhere in a word doc.


As opposed to the Democrats that refuse to enforce immigration law, or refuse to prosecute all sorts of crime they don't feel like (Except when they have to "Get Trump by all means")?

We can play this game all day, so let's just agree Democracy is broken.


Immigration isn't a democrat issue. From where I sit both parties are actually pretty well aligned on that one.

Obama was surprisingly tough on immigration. ICE was doing raids at the time, I remember hearing about raids at the industrial chicken farms not far from where I live. Obama was also working heavily with Mexico to stop immigration at Mexico's southern border.

Illegal immigration is going to be an unsolvable problems regardless of party, as long as we have the incentive of welfare programs that make it financially lucrative just to physically be in the country. I'm not arguing to get rid of those programs, but the incentives are there to come illegally and there's just no feasible way to secure such a large border with land, air, and sea travel.


Which specific immigration laws did Democrats "refuse to enforce"?


Curious to this as well.


Any example at all will do.


In my city, a great deal of laws are not enforced. Enforcement is a policy at most levels, it seems. The interesting thing, to me, is that there’s no fear of future administrations enforcing, or even Trump pulling a 180 and using the law being broken as leverage.


See my comment above. This is a misunderstanding of how the executive branch works. Once Congress has enacted a statute and the _President_ has signed it into law, the executive branch MUST enforce it. An executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears to grant the President such discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the President to “undo” or pause the ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court.

In essence, the executive branch already had a chance to veto the law, but didn’t do so. The signature of the President (whomever that is at the time) seals the fate of the law.


You're ignoring established precedent. Look at Obama choosing not to enforce federal bans on marijuana use in states that have legalized it - that is a policy of not enforcing well established federal law that has been reinforced by every subsequent president for the past 12? 16? years now.


Now that we have seen Trump's executive orders, it's clear he is taking the route of non-enforcement. However, TikTok remains unavailable on the Apple App Store and given that the support article [1] remains unchanged since Monday, I'd say it's likely to stay that way until a court rules on the matter.

"Apple is obligated to follow the laws in the jurisdictions where it operates. Pursuant to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, apps developed by ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries — including TikTok, CapCut, Lemon8, and others — will no longer be available for download or updates on the App Store for users in the United States starting January 19, 2025."

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/121596 - "About availability of TikTok and ByteDance Ltd. apps in the United States"


It will be interesting to see how this plays out from the perspective of the major App Store providers who are the ones with serious money on the line. If they reinstate the app, then they risk being prosecuted at some future date, which could even be after Donald Trump leaves office. But if they keep it banned, then they risk attracting the ire of the administration and its heavy powers of regulation.

Donald Trump is very unpredictable, but one thing seems to be clear from his behavior. Anything that serves to benefit himself or his family tends to receive his favor. And there are billionaires swirling around him ready to do him favors two of whom are potential buyers for TikTok.


> the executive branch MUST enforce it

Or what?

(I'm not being flippant. Are there consequences I'm not aware of if he decides not to enforce?)


Or nothing. Literally! No GOP representative will dare go against the Trump, or else they will be primaryied. The law only applies if there are consequences, and in this case there aren't consequences. If you don't realize this is how US operates, you are living in some la-la land like the democrats that insist on decorum, norms and such other BS.


Your understanding of the law is incorrect when you say "the executive branch MUST enforce it". Administrations of all political stripes have decided not to enforce parts of particular laws. And this is precisely because "enforcement" means you need to use limited resources to prosecute someone for breaking the law, and the executive branch has always had wide latitude deciding who they prosecute. If Congress decides the president is not faithfully enforcing the laws, their option is impeachment. Well, we all saw how that went the last few times...

The thing that is shocking to me about the current TikTok situation is that while Trump may be free to say "I won't enforce this law", he can't write any sort of executive order overturning the law, and I think it's pretty disgusting the media isn't pushing back against this more (except for Kara Swisher, who made this exact point) and saying this isn't possible.

The law is explicit that any company (like Apple, Google or Oracle) that provides services for TikTok would be in violation of the law and subject to large penalties. Nothing Trump says as president can change that without Congress acting. So it is simply baffling to me that these major companies would be willing to put themselves in serious legal jeopardy with just what amounts to a pinky promise and a wink from Trump.


>That’s a surprising outcome.

It's President Trump, what are you going to do about it? The man has been regularly breaking the law since 2016 and there is never any political will to stop him.

Trump v. U.S. established it's not illegal when Trump does it.


I feel like Americans didn't realize that the country slipped into a mixed authoritarian regime now.

As any other mixed authoritarian regime, the laws matter somewhat but are also balanced with the intent of the guy on the top.

And I did say authoritarian, not dictatorship, those aren't the same level. There's a lot of shades of black between Norway and China.


Many many of us did, but were powerless to stop it.


More like you cheered it on while your club was the one benefiting.


I don't know who you think I am or what you think you're saying, but none of that applies to me.


Writing in laws that allow you to selectively take out whoever is convenient at any time is lawmaking 101.

Of course lawfare is the tool of the democrats, and not republicans, like you seem to believe.


[flagged]


Before 2016, some of the lawsuits succeeded. After 2016, he's pretty much safe from legal ramifications until his death.


[flagged]


That's not how racism works.


Trying and doing takes a minute for him, fixing it is a long process with consequence on all others mostly.

All those opportunist-narcissist shit-stirrers out there rely on the prudent and consequently slow self fixing mechanisms of societies (beyond the dumb and lazy childish masses vegetate below these figures and so looking up to them) like viruses on the delayed adaptation of the immune system. The host that feed them may easily die this way? Not their problem!! They have their shine and rule moment and they do not have much of miserable and futile life left anyway, f*ck others!


The president can pardon whomever he wants. It's in the U.S. Constitution.


Do pardons extend to companies? That could be a really unintended consequence of the whole "companies are people" precedent.


It might be surprising, but SCOTUS confirms it


They're just 9 clowns in robes these days


If this stands, it certainly is. It’s a mockery of the whole of the system. Congress better act on overturning it post haste or enforcing it post haste.


They only have one option for the next two years: Impeach and remove. GOOD LUCK LMAO


Yes, the republican dominated congress and senate are certain to do that. It's very clear this puppy has no bottom.


To be fair, he's already been impeached twice; this wouldn’t be anything new to anybody.


"and remove"


Third time is the charm!


President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to the rescue!!

For those who haven’t seen it yet, go watch Idiocracy from Mike Judge. It’s a preview of the years to come.


That's a unfair comparison towards President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Didn't he give up his position in the end towards the more qualified main character of the movie?


After attempting to murder him first. But yes.


Arguably DJT consented to the murder of his VP, before cedeing power once the coup failed. So not too far off.


yeah but president camacho went willingly; DJT only went because his coup failed


Or way older and much more eloquent (albeit less digestible) "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Or even older "The Medium Is the Massage" by Marshall McLuhan.


Money quote from President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to cement how he and Trump align on values:

> Come on, scro! Don't be a pussy! Besides, you do a kick-ass job and you get a full pardon.


Remind me again who pardoned his own son.


After the precedent around pardons set by his predecessor I'll give him that one.

At least Biden let the process play out before issuing the pardon so the public got to know all the details.


> At least Biden let the process play out before issuing the pardon so the public got to know all the details.

That sentence didn't age well.

Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee members https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-preemptively-pardons-a...

President Biden pardons family members in final minutes of presidency https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-biden-pardons-fami...


I think it aged perfectly well.

We were talking about his son, he let the process play out in full which is beyond respectable.

When the incoming administration has shown extraordinary will to persecute political opponents, I think it would be unethical not to preemptively pardon these people.


At least Hunter Biden won't be our Ambassador to France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner


More like a documentary of the last eight.


The last two felt more like Weekend at Bernie's.


iT's a doCuMentArY!

It's a film that was intended as a joke, and uses Eugenics as its premise. Yes, the Internet has made idiots louder, but it has also helped intelligent people become smarter. The next 4 years will be like the last 8, minus the pandemic.


>The next 4 years will be like the last 8, minus the pandemic.

Yes, calls to takeover ally countries and releasing a presidential cryptocurrency really remind me of the last 8 years.


Speaking of inscrutable nonsense that antagonizes ally countries: I’m still pissed off about the Canadian lumber tariffs.


My brain struggles to understand how people can see how Trump is operating and think it is "normal".

What has happened to Americans??


Don’t worry, Trump will get us another pandemic.

We still haven’t restored the part of the US federal government that stopped SARSv1 (they operated out of China and other countries with the cooperation of local authorities). Trump disbanded them before SARSv2 (aka COVID-19), so they weren’t around to respond to it.

Also, we’re still funding the biological weapons research programs that almost certainly created COVID (according to documents from multiple departments in the Biden administration).

On top of all that, RFK’s trying to switch everyone to raw milk in the middle of a bird/cow flu pandemic. That creates a new disease transmission vector that’ll probably help it cross to humans.


There is no eugenics in that movie?


I like the movie a lot, but the beginning is a little problematic from a modern viewing iirc. It discusses how the poor and uneducated produce more kids than the higher classes, thus a dumb population after many generations.

Factually true about the correlation between higher standard of living and having fewer kids. However, that exact discussion has been used as a dog whistle against other "undesirable" groups in the past. The movie's beginning implies it would be better if we decide who gets to have kids.

Overall a great movie, but I think that part has aged poorly.


I don't think you have to draw that specific implication.

Given that the phenomenon is essentially real, what do you think that means?

Is reality problematic?


> Is reality problematic?

Look around! I'd say so! :)


>uses Eugenics as its premise

Uh, false?


there's an implied (if tongue-in-cheek) pro-eugenics message, since the premise is rooted in dysgenics being a real problem


How you go from "smart people should reproduce more" to "cull the population of the unfavorable" is on you, but thats certainly not the conclusion I would draw.


eugenics != "cull the population of the unfavorable"

eugenics includes positions like "unfavorable should reproduce less than the favorable"


Is anyone aware of any opinion poll among US population about banning tiktok? This to me feels like one of the issues with potentially largest disconnect between voters and politicians

Edit: found one from Pew. "The share of Americans who support the U.S. government banning TikTok now stands at 32%." Sept 05, 2024. In contrast, 87% US lawmakers voted for the law that caused this.


28% oppose the ban, and 32% support it. So a majority are either in favor or ambivalent. Two years ago a majority supported it: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/05/support-f...

Support has declined and opposition has increased. I don't think there's much of a disconnect here though, since it doesn't seem there are many people with strong opinions counter to what Congress chose to do.


"Not Sure" != "ambivalent". It's a mistake to lump "Not Sure" and "Opposed" together and declare a majority, as the group as a while does not represent a specific stance. Any attempt at nuance for either side gets bucketed into the largest category.

That group seems like the most interesting question... what sub groups do they fall into.


Anytime there are such large numbers of "undecideds" it's likely they are low-information, and an opportunity for Trump (or any unscrupulous politician, but really, Trump) to lie to them and turn them to whatever side they wish.


Since 170M Americans look at TT, I wonder of how much of it was TT propaganda itself.

The amount of propaganda on TT is rather huge, though I won't say any different than US media, just more of it these days oriented to how 'good' China is.


To be fair, self-promotion is a good kind of propaganda to broadcast. It inspires healthy competition.

If tomorrow China becomes a global beacon of high-quality and affordable healthcare, maybe US will actually feel some pressure to fix its issues.


The impetus for this is largely from Congress in both parties. Public support often doesn't align with congressional action and it doesn't stop them.

Vote for your congress members.


Guess you were not part of the popular vote


>drumpf bad


He is! But I don't call him names; that's lazy.


Yep.

But that's why it isn't a direct democracy. Sometimes government needs to do things that are not popular.

But of course this is always going to be an opportunity for a populist to take advantage of the disconnect. Sometimes, as in this case, that is damaging. But of course it's well within the rights of politicians to play that game.


I wonder if those numbers would change if people read the same intel reports and knew how far the Chinese spies are up our asses.


You’re overestimating the number of people that care about it. A good chunk of people really don’t care about privacy, data security and potential exposure to propaganda, no matter how much we (engineers who actually care about it) tell them to.


Lots of people do care about the propaganda thing. Like, most normie voters I know definitely don't give a crap about the data privacy stuff, but they haven't forgotten about the cold war and are not bought into this "maybe it's fine if the Chinese government can control what all the kids are seeing" narrative.

But it's a big problem that the framing has often been about the data privacy thing.


A lot of normie voters care but they are at least one if not two generations removed from the median TikTok user. Generational divides can be pretty stark and it's clear that future generations increasingly don't care as much about internet privacy. In fact, being a public figure on the internet is a good thing these days since you can make a career out of it.


Again, I don't think it is ever again going to be mainstream to care about the privacy thing.

But I think older people do care now about the potential for hostile foreign propaganda affecting our politics, and I think the younger folks who (reasonably!) care more now about losing their favorite entertainment app will grow up and understand the propaganda problem when they're older. That is, I don't think it's a generational thing, I think it's an age thing. And politics is driven by people over the age of 30.


People who were born after Cold War are 35. I don't think TikTok's main demographic remembers that.


Yes, but you don't have to be alive to understand the problem. I agree with you that the cold war is very old news to the TikTok demographic, but it isn't to people who were born in the 80s and before, and that is who drives politics. By the time the current young people grow up more, they will have their own direct experiences with geopolitical struggle. It remains to be seen where that will lead.


Engineer who uses TikTok here, I'll let you know once I become a communist.


I assume most americans today are already under the impression their government spies on them and facebook/google will gladly give anything that is asked for, how does the chinese spying on them make any difference for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times. What will the chinese do to the regular american citizen compared to what his own contry could do with this information?

If you're diaspora and other smaller interest groups for sure, but the general citizen probably wouldn't care at an individual level. I'd argue that the NSA revelations and how everything just got worse and worse since then killed any chance of the public caring about this kind of stuff.


> how does the chinese spying on them make any difference for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times

I hope our adversaries believe the same one day!


I'd be surprised if they don't already.


"under the impression" ???

We have proof. There is no guessing here.


> people read the same intel reports and knew how far the Chinese spies

People do, and after Snowden revelation, they wonder why they should care.

The population was forced to accept the fact that they are constantly spied on 10 years ago.

Decisions have consequences.


Well, those who made the decision decided to keep the intel secret, so we'll never know.