this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
376 points (89.7% liked)

Technology

60085 readers
4929 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
376
Apple co-founder calls out ‘hypocrisy’ of politicians calling for TikTok ban | CNN Business (edition.cnn.com)
submitted 9 months ago by Umbrella8335 to c/technology
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Everybody talking about nonexistent bans, playing into TikTok's hands of shifting the narrative away from them being forced to sell.

[–] mightyfoolish 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What's the difference?

[–] Prior_Industry 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The end user won't be aware anything happened. If a ban kicks in then they will start to notice issues when the app updates don't occur.

[–] mightyfoolish 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We are talking about management going from a Chinese company to a US company. They're will be no guarantees we will end up with the same service.

[–] Prior_Industry 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Service could change at any point though. If new American owners are smart they are not going to break something that's obviously working.

[–] mightyfoolish 2 points 9 months ago

Every internet service got worse... with the same owners.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Forcing them to sell means TikTok will continue to operate under new ownership, owners who are not an arm of the Chinese Military.

Banning them would mean TikTok will no longer operate.

The legislature in the works is a forced sale.

[–] KredeSeraf 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A forced sale on a timescale that these kind of sales have never and will never work on. It's framed like a sale for those reasons but in practice it's an impossible task designed to force failure and thus removal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

We'll see, I suppose. Some business sell in a couple months, some businesses take years to sell. I haven't read the legislature so idk if there is a time limitation set on the forced sale, please enlighten us.

[–] KredeSeraf 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A decent article on the time frame of similar sales

The bill itself

"web hosting services in the U.S. would be barred from hosting any “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically calling out ByteDance’s TikTok, per the text of the bill (H.R. 7521). The ban would go into effect unless such a “foreign adversary” (i.e. ByteDance) divests its ownership in the app (i.e. TikTok) within 165 days of becoming law."

The paraphrased relevant section.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

165 days seems to not match the bill you linked to, it appears they get fined after 180 days from when the law is enacted. That means it's entirely possible the CCP never sell TikTok at all and just pay the fees.

(2) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply—

(A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection

(g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

and then there is this bit about the consequences for taking too long:

(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—

(A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.

(B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation. (2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General— (A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and

I thank you for providing this information for us, though, you've gone above and beyond and I thank you for that.

[–] KredeSeraf 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, did you work out the math on thst fee?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

$700 Bn it would be funny to see them set up a 30 year payment plan just to spite the USA.