• cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Essentially yea, the laws enforcement mechanism as-is is just having the app delisted from app stores

      Everything else is of TikToks own doing

      • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        And that’s all it should be. Currently, the US government does not have the facilities to block traffic to specific websites or IP addresses on a country-wide basis. We don’t have a “great firewall” the way China does, and we should keep it that way.

          • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            They cannot take down a domain registered with a registry and registrar outside their jurisdiction. They could try and compel domestic DNS providers to block queries for that domain, but there are numerous providers who are unlikely to comply with that request on grounds of the 1st amendment.

            Given that the OP is about TikTok (a foreign website) being blocked in the United States, your point has limited relevance here. Further, if the website was hosted stateside they could just physically seize the servers themselves.

            • arin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              They have servers here otherwise it would be a laggy mess to use tiktok

              • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Correct, but that doesn’t mean TikTok would be inaccessible if they didn’t have servers in the US. My point is that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to completely limit access to a foreign website. It would be very slow and they’d lose users, sure, but they could keep running as usual from outside the US and still remain accessible to people inside the US.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I completely misunderstood the ban then. If you go back and read my previous thoughts on the matter, I debated IF this was good or bad.

          And my debate was, do you allow actual spy services to keep spying in your country? Or do you ban the services, and introduce a precident which could easily be used towards a government lockdown of services?

          And ultimately I landed of the belief that we shouldn’t ban tiktok. But that was under the assumption that it was a nationwide services ban. Not just a delisting from the app store.

          Tiktok can still host the apk on their own website. Any other installations already installed on apple devices would still work. This isn’t a ban. It’s an app store delisting. And that’s fine. That initself doesn’t fly against the concepts of net neutrality. It becomes a matter of availability at that point.

          And if tiktok is doing this of their own choice, then that doesn’t go against net neutrality either. That’s YOUR choice (if you are tiktok).

          So, yeah. This small clarification really made this “debate” not much of a debate to me anymore. Ignore all previous positions I held. This issue just became simple. Fuck tiktok. Thats on them. The government didn’t ban them. They delisted an app.

          Childporn is illegal on any network. As well it should be. Tiktok is not illegal as a result of this “ban”. That’s what I thought was happening. It’s not (assuming you are correct, which I have no reason to doubt).

          • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            (Edit 2: read the bill, it also bans American companies from offering hosting services to a company that is banned through the law https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text)

            Arguably, if the app isn’t easy to obtain then the cost of all the US-based servers would become an enormous expense. All US customer data is on its own US-based infra hosted by Oracle. Migrating all the US data elsewhere would also be an enormous expense. Server infa for 170 million Americans on an App is not gonna be cheap to keep running, esp since even if tiktok tried, the best they could do is get apk’s to android users. iOS users are SOL.

            Given how iOS dominates the US still and only a small portion of android users are comfortable manually installing apps from non-store locations, why would they go through the effort to stay around for a fraction of the previous user base.

            Its a perfectly uneerstsndable business decision, and its one they may be making on the hopes thay the ban will get reversed shortly after its put in place. Its also perfectly understandable to not want to sell the US-based component of the App when they still operate in plenty of other countries, including China, and the sale would devalue what they retained.

            (Edit: and while their web offering has improved over the years, they probably are assuming a similar drop of userbase since only so many would be willing to move their usage to a web app that is not super easy to use for capturing video or handling notifications)

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.

          Sure, it doesn’t prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn’t require that much new infrastructure.

          • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Except banning vpns would kill the economy immediately. Pretty much every big corporation is utilizing vpns to facilitate their work from home infrastructure. Hell, often even internally. Not to mention state and federal governments also use them. Suggesting they could do that is a joke.

            • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              From what I understand, in my country OpenVPN and Wireguard work fine within the borders, but the protocols are blocked to foreign servers.

            • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              They’ll just make legal carveouts for government and commercial use, and go after consumer-facing VPN providers that refuse to comply. For VPN providers based outside the US, they could delist their websites from DNS or block their IPs. They can’t stop someone who’s determined from finding a way, of course, but just a few simple barriers prevents most people from putting in the effort.

                • PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Are you seriously trying to predict the actions of the US federal government using an argument based on logic and common sense?

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              I wasn’t talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that “bans VPNs” still uses them commercially to some extent.

              What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they’d allow customers to access banned sites.

              Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I’d wager 99% of “normal” access could be blocked.

          • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            I said “currently”. Sure, the US could pass legislation that would require ISPs to implement that ability. I said they do not currently have that ability, and you seem to be disagreeing because it is hypothetically possible for the US to build its own great firewall. I do not want to assume your intentions but it appears you may have misinterpreted my message.

            What I said is still correct. The point of my comment was that the US should not pass legislation to build a great firewall.

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Oh, I thought you meant physically unable (for some time) - meaning they’d have to upgrade their router hardware or something which would take a couple of weeks/months.

              But yes, right now the US is unable to implement a firewall. Though with the current Supreme Court it might as well decide tomorrow that free speech doesn’t extend to communication via electrons or something.

        • Viri4thus@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Actually

          I think if people in the US had the capacity for introspection and empathy we would have had a collective

          are we the baddies

          moment every year for the past 250y…

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    A shutdown would be preferable than a sale of the active app and userbase to Elon no?

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        You got some suggestions on where to look? We’re speedrunning the fall of rome over here, it’s pretty much to the point that even hope is an unreasonable thing to hope for…

        • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          I meant the claim that this was somehow a good thing, and not a performative “anti-china” bill that was really about cutting out the young people’s current venue for organizing against the wealthy’s interests, like their criticisms of the genocide in Gaza. China will still get all that info by buying it off the hundred other apps that collect it. If they cared about the data collection, they’d have addressed all data collection.

  • rob200@endlesstalk.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    “They” say they are banning it over national security concerns I think it’s deeper then that. They can’t have a socialist like platform having an audience. Which in my opinion is why they wanted to force a sell or just ban Tiktok.

    I don’t think, that they will go after Rednote if it doesn’t gain popularity the way that Tiktok did.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m surprised they’re taking that approach rather than pushing the web version.

  • Rose56@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Do it, just do it with no second thoughts. They can’t, they will lose all their business.

  • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Zuckerberg is behind it, just like he was when they banned it on India. Politicians get what they want by eliminating a company that doesn’t support them, Meta gets more usershare in the U.S. they can control the narrative and keep their guys in place so they don’t get regulated and they get more tax breaks.

    • MisterMoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Meanwhile China says no American internet sites in their country and I guess that’s ok for some reason.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        It’s ok because USA is doing it too. Every state, every politician is basically the same. It’s all about violent control of the planet. These apps are just the tip of the iceberg.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Censorship is bad when China does it. Censorship is bad when America does it.

        Same for Germany, Australia, Japan, North and South Korea.

        Governments don’t censor speech because they protect their citizens, they censor speech because it protects their monopoly on violence and help propagate their visions to an unquestioning audience.

      • notgold@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It’s not ok that the CCP block foreign apps either. Now that the yanks are blocking Chinese apps they can’t complain about the CCP blocking theirs.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      In other words, the US government exists solely to serve its wealthiest constituents.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    20 hours ago

    They’re shutting down instead of blocking new downloads, seems like a stunt. But the blocking of new downloads is obviously happening if SCOTUS doesn’t step in…that’s the law. That’s just what the law says.

    • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The law prevents other American companies from hosting their infrastructure so they don’t really have much to do other than shut down and offer the minimum required to off-board employees and contractors.

  • recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Please criticize the us government for this as hard as I have been criticizing China for locking it’s citizens out of the world stage with their “great firewall”.

    Or don’t, it’s not like hypocrisy doesn’t get enshrined and worshipped here lmfaoooo

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      14 hours ago

      “You don’t understand, their censorship and control over their citizens is evil and disgusting, our censorship and control over our citizens is defending our freedom from terrorists. What do you have to hide? Are you a China shill???”

      • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Comment: “Please complain about the US Gov as much as I have been about China”

        Reply: Accuses previous commenter of shilling for the US Gov

        Nice strawman, bro. Did Winnie the Pooh build it for you?

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    This is all theatre, trump is going to “save it” after starting the initial push to ban it (for the wrong reasons) to pretend he did something for you. Worst part is that all of the no/low info voters and non voters will eat it up.

    It’s the equivalent of a person pushing you into the middle of the street and at the very last second, that same person tells the drivers to all stop. “Wow, I owe you my life!”