Hours After Going Dark, TikTok Is Back

The popular video app restored service in the U.S. after President-elect Donald Trump promised to postpone a federal ban.

UPDATE: TikTok is back online in the U.S., after going dark for about 15 hours starting on Saturday night. In a message to users, the social media app said it was restoring service after President-elect Donald Trump promised to pause a federal ban that was supposed to take effect on Sunday. 

Trump, who previously supported banning TikTok, also proposed that the federal government buy a 50 percent "ownership position" in the app. 

The headline on this post has been updated, but the text below remains unaltered.

TikTok is gone—at least for now.

The social media site with more than 170 million American users that has spawned untold numbers of viral videos and drawn the federal government's ire for its possible connections to the Chinese government went dark on Saturday night—just a few hours before a federal law banning the site was scheduled to take effect.

"Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now," the message that greeted users reads. "A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now."

The app seems to have been removed from app stores run by Apple and Google. The app's swift disappearance comes at the end of a wild week that saw the U.S. Supreme Court reject TikTok's last-ditch effort to avoid the federal ban, even as some lawmakers who voted for the ban and the Biden administation seemed to back away from the idea of enforcing it.

That ban was passed in April with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress and signed by President Joe Biden. President-elect Donald Trump has given mixed signals about how he'd approach the ban. His previous administration actually kicked off the effort to ban TikTok, but he recently said he'd prefer a 90-day extension before the ban goes into effect. (Check out reporting from Reason's Emma Camp and Robby Soave for more detail on what may have been TikTok's final days in the U.S.)

In its message to users on Saturday night, TikTok seemingly indicated that the changeover in administrations might change the app's fate. "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office," the message read. "Stay tuned."

Regardless of what happens next, the TikTok ban remains a disturbing development that expands federal power to attack free speech—and a worrying precedent that could allow the government to target other platforms over similarly vague concerns about national security. It's a dark day for free expression, and not just on the popular dance-video app.

Comments

[Don't look at me!]

How will we survive without dance videos?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

In a sign of solidarity many China based games also went dark despite not being affected by the order.

The freak put on Twitter is hilarious. Some accounts are trying to blame the US, but far more are accounts saying they'll never trust China apps again.

[Riva]

How will the left's rented mobs coordinate their riots?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

I’m sure the FBI has other ways to communicate with them.

[damikesc]

China banned TikTok LONG ago. We are just realizing that they must know something.

[Quicktown Brix]

Yeah. That free speech of the peasants is bad for the elite.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Apparently it’s back up already, Boehm’s pro CCP hand wringing and pants shitting for nothing.

[Jimbo BTR]

"It's a dark day for free expression."

Try expressing your opinion on TikTok about:

Tiananmen Square
Uighur Internment camps
Communist Party crimes
Winnie the Pooh
or countless other topics the CCP doesn't like

and you'll find out how NOT-free your expression really is on TikTok.

Communists are liars, thieves, cheats and murderers. They don't play by our rules so, so we shouldn't play by our rules when dealing with them. The only good commie is a dead commie.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Tic tok is a ccp psy op, not a social media sight.
As always bohem is a lying retard

[diver64]

Winnie The Pooh?

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Xi Jinping. A lot of Chinese were using Winnie the Pooh as a stand in for Xi due to similarities in looks.

[Don’t get eliminated]

https://propaganda.mediaeducationlab.com/sites/default/files/2022-02/image_2022-02-12_175722.png

[mad.casual]

Slightly unrelated but not really: The market-leading and most popular 3D printer maker, Chinese-owned Bambu Labs, just announced that they're effectively locking out 3rd Party software and users in to their Cloud platform "in the name of security".

Of course, to even get the updates you have to arguably make your system less secure, the updates obsolete some of the features that would allow you to keep it more secure but also leave their ecosystem, and they can/will shut down your printer until it updates but, you know, a Chinese company is really concerned about your security.

The runway on this one has been miles long. Specifically nefarious: the printer is aimed at 3D printer-adjacent markets. Car modification and similar home engineering channels or venues have had Bambu printers quite literally thrown at them with the 'Out-of-the-box' sales pitch. Usually with the disclaimer that "It all works." as long as you stay and buy within the ecosystem but with the nod-and-wink that you can fool around on the side. Well, now it seems that, in the name of security, all the car parts or whatever other parts you've designed, might wind up residing on or passing through Bambu Labs' servers and you won't be able to print otherwise.

[Rick James]

Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now
A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.

We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!

In the meantime, you can still log in to download your data.

[Minadin]

Odd that part of the message was omitted from the story above.

[Quicktown Brix]

Did they edit the story to add it? Because I see what I think you guys are refering to.

In its message to users on Saturday night, TikTok seemingly indicated that the changeover in administrations might change the app's fate. "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office," the message read. "Stay tuned."

[Minadin]

It's part of the actual 'no service' message from TikTok, which was truncated in the article.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Ignore the sea lion. He has no concern with understanding basic facts easily found. He is just asking questions.

[Quicktown Brix]

Asking a rhetorical question to point out false information = sea lioning?

You don’t need to answer that. It's another rhetorical question.

[Quicktown Brix]

It was interrupted for explanation, but not omitted.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Of course Boehm omitted that. It’s Boehm. His hatred of Trump rules him. Can you imagine what he would be like if he were some homeless drunk too?

[Rick James]

Regardless of what happens next, the TikTok ban remains a disturbing development that expands federal power to attack free speech—and a worrying precedent that could allow the government to target other platforms over similarly vague concerns about national security. It's a dark day for free expression; not just on the popular dance-video app.

It was better before *checks previous Reason articles* Twitter was "imploding" with the introduction of free speech back to the platform.

[Rick James]

It's as if a million non-binary Zoomers cried out, and then had to go to work.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Ha. They don't have jobs.

Well aside from that USAF pilot posting videos on the red note Chinese app inside her plane.

https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1880532583118958601

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

She should be executed for treason

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

I’m usually the one saying that here.

[mad.casual]

Just invite her to the Capitol Building, have an officer shout "You're trespassing!" and "She's coming right for us!" before shooting her dead.

Case closed. Everyone goes home.

[diver64]

Oooo. In a couple of days I bet you are going to see her grounded and her career come to a screeching halt. Some peoples quest for internet popularity seems to override all common sense.

[jimc5499]

I remember the video of the airliner that was on fire. Instead of evacuating the aircraft the passengers stood there shooting video of the fire through the windows.

[Kungpowderfinger]

That woman is as stupid as the diversity program that commissioned her to begin with.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It was a strategic and reluctant decision, I am sure.

Regardless of what happens next, the TikTok ban remains a disturbing development that expands federal power to attack free speech—and a worrying precedent that could allow the government to target other platforms over similarly vague concerns about national security. It's a dark day for free expression; not just on the popular dance-video app.

Strange that anyone would expect anything different from Biden.

[Stuck in California]

Does anyone remember Reason's stance on Parlor for years ago?

Or anyone who was kicked off of any of the other social medias? Just wondering. I wasn't paying attention to individual writers here at that time.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Ironically reason said Amazon taking down Parler wasn't a first amendment issue. Despite it being done to please government.

It's not a First Amendment issue, of course, and it's perfectly within Apple's, Google's, and Amazon's rights as private companies to make these choices. But it also looks a lot like they're making Parler a sacrificial lamb to political pressure to do something about people talking too uncontrollably online.

Thats ENB.

https://reason.com/2021/01/11/maga-powered-parler-is-down-after-amazon-cancels-its-web-hosting-services/

This was during the build your own internet days.

[Stuck in California]

Curiously, the reason I ever bother to post here is that it's relatively uncensored and anonymous. Though I don't stop by every day anymore since they've gone to a model of just posting ragebait so their commenters immediately have to expand the comments section and post. Clicks is clicks.

But that's about what I expect. ENB was the one who wanted us all to mastadon since twitter was dead.

These days they're still blatantly blind to the information on government censors in the twitter files. It was like "build your own internet!" so Musk says "Sure!" and they freaked out. They never really got away from the apoplectic ululations of the progressive mainstream media over his doing so, or his pulling back the curtain to show how the censorship-industrial complex worked.

Protestations over the loss of a tick tock sure have less weight when you're so compromised.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

There is a reason the people that have been here for decades now hate what reason has become. They are big goverment Marxist scum

[mad.casual]

Does anyone remember Reason's stance on Parlor for years ago?

I bring up Lieberman phoning up Amazon over Wikileaks and people act like I'm trying to bring back the Charleston, but Heaton and Bragg will invoke the ghost of Franz Ferdinand and using bone spurs to dodge the draft like WWI and Vietnam happened shortly before The Fall of Kabul.

[Stuck in California]

Who acted like that? I doubt it was anyone who isn't perpetually disingenuous, the ones who seem to troll for the sake of trolling. I pretty much have them all muted at this point.

I ask because that's an actual principled point. Wikileaks was just there to make the US look bad, but tough shit, government agents looking bad is what freedom of the press is all about. So starts the basis of a hearty libertarian debate, right? One as idiologically fundamental then as 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or this week.

[Keldonric]

I do not understand the need by some to disparage the consumption of short form video and those who enjoy it. What other leisure activities receive the same treatment? Some people watch football and some people watch cat videos.

[Quicktown Brix]

some people watch cat videos

We were doing that here for a while...although some of us insisted it was actually a chicken video.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Because tic toc is a ccp psy op, not a social media site. If you love the ccp that much move to china

[A Thinking Mind]

How are stupid short videos on TikTok a “psyop?” I thought the threat was about data mining.

You’re making it seem like people should not be allowed to share the type of content that was on TikTok. Are you in favor of free speech or not?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

They ban or promote certain CCP designed narratives such as their elevation of free Palestine content, trans content, etc. They do not do this for china, but solely seemingly western countries. This is not self derived interest but seemingly China promoting stuff to cause social strife in western countries.

[A Thinking Mind]

So they take stuff created by individual users and they get promoted in certain ways? So these are things that individual users are already saying anyway?

You can promote materials all you want but you can’t make people like or agree with them. That’s just those users expressing their free speech.

Hamas is evil, but pro Palestinian viewpoints are just free speech. That’s not a valid national security threat, even if I disagree with what they say. The way to defeat bad speech is with more speech.

[BYODB]

I'm not entirely sure that free speech is implicated in the first place given that the platform has to follow Chinese rules therefore the speech that takes place on TikTok is already not 'free speech' and sale to a U.S. firm would mean they could follow American rules.

If the platform is sold to a U.S. firm and doesn't just disappear, it would actually be a net increase in freedom of speech on the platform.

I haven't seen anyone actually claim that you can say whatever you want on TikTok. I have seen people say there are topics that are off limits. Admittedly I've never used it and have no interest in that platform, so my knowledge on that subject is apocryphal at best, but if that's true any free speech argument doesn't hold much water for me.

[A Thinking Mind]

The downstream implications concern me.

If it was OUR government who partially owned TikTok and was moderating and censoring it, and using it to push certain narratives, that would be abhorrent and in violation of the First Amendment. But if it was a private American company pushing the same moderation policy (of their own volition, with no government pressure), then that's entirely their prerogative, their own decision to make. If you don't like that moderation policy, just don't use TikTok, but if you do like the way their algorithm works and the messages being put out, then it's for you.

The difference between the two is the forced participation, and the fact that American citizens are subject to the sovereign power of the government. You can't force Americans, though taxes, to fund a censored platform that may work against their interests (which is why NPR shouldn't be a thing). This would be compelled speech.

American citizens are not beneath the sovereignty of the CCP. They don't pay taxes to China. They aren't subject to Chinese courts, Chinese magistrates, etc. To the extent that China IS trying to operate a secret police in the US, that is the national security concern, and we've had some prosecutions of Chinese officials operating on US soil. But their speech is not compelled speech for American citizens. TikTok users are free to use or not use the app. TikTok creators who don't like the censorship are free to leave the platform and they are not funding it.

The only argument for banning TikTok that carries any water to me is the data mining argument. If they're scooping up data that it would be illegal for any US company to collect, then they should be subject to US law. But I'm seeing a lot of complaints that people don't like TikTok's content, and my instinctive response to that is, "So don't use TikTok, it's none of your business what other people consume."

[BYODB]

I agree their reasons for requiring sale of TikTok to an American company are spurious at best and seem almost intentionally vague, making it suspicious at the very least.

However, as it's a foreign company owned and operated by a known adversary of the United States, despite our trade agreements, I'm not losing much sleep over this.

I'd say the thing that bothers me most, or at all, about this is that it will probably end up in the hands of some politically connected firm seeking their rent.

At the end of the day though, this is much less of a concern for me than things like asset forfeiture of American citizens. I can be mad about more than one thing at a time, but TikTok is not a particularly valuable first amendment platform if it's one at all so just about every concern I'd have on this involves property and ownership rather than any particular first amendment concern.

Frankly, I'd be neutral if TikTok simply stopped operating in the United States at all and some other firm copied their platform and released their own version in the United States. It would be poetic justice given the rampant intellectual property theft by Chinese firms and government, which is a main reason I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. The Chinese are not honest actors in the market, and as far as 'punishments' go for that dishonesty this is small potatoes.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

You understand that social media companies have tremendous sway over people. Google alone sways elections based on what the push to people.

[A Thinking Mind]

Which is why Trump lost in 2024, because Google was so staunchly against him and burying his search results.

[A Thinking Mind]

Or maybe Trump only won because Elon Musk mind controlled people with Twitter?

Fuck this argument.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Or the collusion of government was exposed and became obvious?

You have to remember half of voters are as retarded as sarc and will blindly buy even Trump is Hitler arguments.

The ability to manipulate went down as trust in media went down.

[A Thinking Mind]

So if they can't manipulate people's thoughts anymore, we shouldn't worry about Tiktok manipulating people. Because the collusion with the Chinese government has been exposed and has become obvious.

Either you think Elon Musk is a dangerous security threat manipulating people through his control of Twitter, or you think that TikTok is just another social media platform.

[TJJ2000]

CORRECT.
"A Thinking Mind" gets it.
The rest are just arguing about 'preferred' speech.

Which is what always seems to be the bottom-line since no-one seems to know what the 'national security' threat is.

[BYODB]

Yeah, I'd say this latest election is proof that massive spending and just about every media personality being against someone doesn't actually translate into their preferred candidate winning.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Because people at that point began to see the lies and manipulation. It is estimated that prior to the exposure of Twitter files and such, Google and Facebook could change the electorate by around 3%

[BYODB]

If one's argument rests on people being smarter, it's a bad bet in my view.

[A Thinking Mind]

It's so weird to see you, of all people, essentially echoing Biden's sentiments about the dangerous big tech oligarchy. You essentially agree with Biden, except that now that big tech is more amenable to Trump, you don't think they're controlling what people think.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

https://americasdigitalshield.com

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Except I'm not. I'm staying actial information promoted by multiple researchers.

You're allowed to recognize facts without advocating state intervention.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Is this an advertising doesn't work speech you gave?

Look how many idiots think Palestine is a long and historical region of Palestine, knowing nothing of history.

Look how people still repeat hands up don't shoot.

They are promoting intentionally misleading videos to foment strife. An activity done in every war zone for a century. It is to cause bad outcomes in the west.

[Quicktown Brix]

TikTok Goes Dark

The US looks like a black hole to China now that the CCP lost all ability to see what we're doing here. We did it! We're finally safe. And the best part is we only lost freedom that's not important to me.

[diver64]

Yes, total loss of freedom because there is nowhere else online. None, not even here.

[Quicktown Brix]

This site isn't appropriate for all my Taylor Swift lip syncing content though.

[A Thinking Mind]

Not relevant if you have “other” means. It still infringes your freedom. If the US banned all whiskey, would you defend it because at least there’s still gin and rum?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

This is more like the US banned one specific brand of whiskey, yet is willing to unban it if the Chinese divest themselves of ownership.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

This.

And the government that owned it was actively adding chemicals to try to harm the country.

[Don't look at me!]

If the US banned all whiskey..

Are you trying to give sarc a heart attack?

[LIBtranslator]

The Western part of the planet was already a dark grey hole to slaves of the People's State Qinks. Party Officials still have AOC's account to browse.

[LIBtranslator]

Lots of people click "agree" to 50 pp of legalese when signing up for mob apps. Guess who will yelp first when Human CentiPad lip-stitched to other ani? Only Telegram has terse verbiage, yet they operate out of a mohammedan monarchy. How many here have read all 14 chapters of TikTok Terms of Service? How about "We reserve the right to disable your user account at any time?" "Our" Looter-rigged politicians are simply changing the meaning of "we..."

[Public Entelectual]

I have never watched Tik Tok.

My lifetime revulsion for Beijing webcraft stems from being there just before Tian An Men.

Overthrow the Xi
Restore the Sung.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Why do you hate Winnie the Pooh?

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Ever read the books? Whiney the pooh is kind of a dick. He invites himself to other people's houses, talks about himself while eating their food, and then leaves after he has eaten all of their food

[Kungpowderfinger]

“The People’s Brother in Law”

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

I looked online. Apparently he’s also a serial murderer. There’s a whole documentary about his ‘blood and honey’.

[Longtobefree]

Still researching, and am unable to find out exactly what first amendment rights the Communist Chinese Party has.
As for Americans who used to use tik tok, they still are free to speak.

[SRG2]

In theory, a US-registered subsidiary would have free speech rights because companies are persons, dontcha know?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

As the USSC stated, algorithms aren't speech dumdum.

[LIBtranslator]

Artificial persons are persons, you know, like Allah, the Baby Jesus and the Holy Ghost--just as susceptible to the death penalty as anyone here. Plus they are the entering wedge for collectivized rights to toss individual rights out of the nest down onto the anthill.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Jesus was a real person you senile pinko. Historians have documented his existence.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Why someone would choose an app with their ToS is still shocking to me. Includes biometrics and even private messages.

[Longtobefree]

I suspect most of the users can't read.
(sort of like New Jersey teachers)

[Quicktown Brix]

As for Americans who used to use tik tok, they still are free to speak.

Yep, just like Twitter and Facebook users that posted about Hunter's laptop or mask/vaccine skepticism. Their free speech rights were not affected just because they couldn't say what they wanted where they wanted.

[SRG2]

The argument I read elsewhere is this. If your company has a hugely valuable subsidiary and you're told you have to shut it down or sell it, you sell it. If you're a government using the subsidiary as an intelligence op, you might just shut it down and move onto the next one.

So fuck the CCP

[See Double You]

Both sides are playing a game. TikTok will be back and owned by American investors after they and Bytedance negotiate a buyout for less than what Bytedance would have sold it for had it been a voluntary exchange. But Bytedance hopes its shutdown will piss off enough users to gain leverage in negotiations.

It's all a fucking game, and we're the pawns.

[LIBtranslator]

Speak for yourself. I vote Libertarian and shun collectivist mob apps.

[See Double You]

Next time, try to respond to what was posted. Thanks.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Haha, you’re talking to Hank Phillips.

https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/who-is-hank-phillips/

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

His family needs to put him in a home. He’s obviously senile.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

You’re a leftist clown playing pretend. You’re also senile.

[DesigNate]

You’re one of the biggest collectivist here Hank.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

You’re a pinko who supports democrats and other pinkos who pretend to be libertarian.

They pretend just like you do.

[A Thinking Mind]

If your company has a valuable subsidiary and you’re told you have to sell it, you should say “fuck off slavers. I own this, you do not.”

[BYODB]

That's not exactly right though.

A) TikTok does not 'have to sell' unless they want to stay in this particular market. They can choose not to and continue doing business with other markets, including their own of over a billion people. In fact, they can create a subsidiary to do business with just Americans and half sell that.

B) TikTok is not an American company and does not enjoy all the same protections as an American company.

[mad.casual]

Libertarians trying to be so open minded their brain falls out. Same stupidity different day.

It's the same as the trans stupidity. Who cares if these lines and definitions or distinctions have been evident, if not clear, for two centuries, if not back through the Renaissance and back into antiquity, what matters is that we can pretend words don't mean anything in order to defend China... or TikTok... or S230 protected Social Media Platforms... whatever it is we want.

[holmegm]

And ... nothing of value was lost.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Whats amusing here is it was two acts by Bytedance itself that turned many politicians to vote yes.

1) artificial increase of pro Palestine posts after 10/7. It went from 8k views to 260k views overnight, showing how the company manipulated algorithms.

2) adding a geolocated banner for users to call their reps. Showing an attempt at forcing politicial action.

These 2 actions proved the arguments that were against TikTok.

[Quicktown Brix]

adding a geolocated banner for users to call their reps. Showing an attempt at forcing politicial action.

The dots do not connect.

As for point 1, what's that have to do with national security?

[Longtobefree]

Nice little career you have there Senator, it would be a shame if this post from your drunken school days got out.

How about voting to give more trade concessions to China?
Oh, yeah, and vote for less defense spending.

[Quicktown Brix]

If keeping a record of someone's speech is a national security risk, the bar is set so low that in effect we have no freedoms at all.

[Knutsack]

Only American social media companies should be allowed to threaten U.S. Senators!

[LIBtranslator]

That was the Brazilian court's excuse for forcing Xitter to either censor and deplatform certain critics or GTFOutta there.

[Don't look at me!]

Sarc doesn’t like when people keep records of his speech either.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

#True.

He also threatens to dox people. Luckily he is retarded.

[Quicktown Brix]

Yeah, because Jesse and ML are preventing him from becoming a senator!

[Don’t get eliminated]

Have you watched any of the confirmations? Sarc would fit right in.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

I’ll bet Sarc raves about that at the bar before he gets 86’d. “Don’t you dare cut me off! I would be a goddamn US Senator right now if it weren’t for that meddling Jesse and ML!”

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Id campaign for him to get elected. His meltdowns on CSPAN would be fucking funny.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

He could move to Vermont and run for Bernie’s seat. They’re both Marxists who claim to be independents.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

He must be sleeping it off.

[Nobartium]

Regardless of what happens next, the TikTok ban remains a disturbing development that expands federal power to attack free speech

Bzzt.

It is an attack on foreign speech, which isn't protected by the constitution. Nor should it be.

[diver64]

Not quite an attack of speech. Actually, no attack on speech. What a stupid statement to make.

[mad.casual]

Bog standard Reason (and FIRE and ACLU...) stupidity. There is only One Amendment to The Constitution and that is Free Speech. Even if it's an obvious abuse of the law or reasoning or the language or human intellect any freedom must be shoehorned into it. Even if it's an obvious funnel to the "The law means what I/we say it means." ends.

[BYODB]

As far as I know, no particular speech was targeted by the government in TikTok's case. That may not be relevant as it could have a chance of curtailing speech, but last I checked TikTok is not an open forum it's a moderated website with ToS that already limit speech on the platform. The government is not telling them they must pull certain content to stay in business, they are telling them they must partially sell to an American firm to stay in business here in the U.S.

Splitting hairs, perhaps, but it seems relevant to the first amendment concerns.

[See Double You]

The real issue isn't free speech but whether Congress's stated rationale - that the Chinese government surreptitiously collects user data - for the ban is a mere smokescreen for its real motivation, which is to pay back American investors' campaign contributions in return for forcing a sale of a profitable but foreign-owned company to them.

[diver64]

" ...possible connections to the Chinese government "? You are aware this is TikTok we are talking about, right?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Reason has to pretend that china has good intentions and every company doesn't have a CCP on their board and China doesn't control their capital.

[LIBtranslator]

Good title. But citizens got what they voted for and against by throwing votes away on the looter kleptocracy. Communism is unpopular, so communists vote Democratic and whine. Christian National Socialism and caudillo fascism are also unpopular, so mystical fascisti vote Republican and whine that they didn't get straight up Naziism. So the Nazis in Congress say "you're both right. We need to ditch individual rights to get rid of sex, drugs and abortion, and we need to trash economic freedom to crush tax evasion and capital flight! So the Jesus Caucus sabotaged LP spoiler vote clout to show Trumpanzees how stupid they are instead of standing for freedom.

[Ken Shultz]

"President-elect Donald Trump said he would issue an executive order on Monday to reinstate TikTok in the U.S. and that he wants the country to have an ownership position in the app. . . .

The president-elect said he wants the U.S. to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture"

What a disgrace! This would make Obama nationalizing GM under the auspices of TARP look libertarian and capitalist by comparison.

If you thought it was bad when Biden could kill any mention of the origins of Covid or Hunter's laptop on social media, how much worse will it be when the progressive return to power (someday), and they actually own a stake in TikTok?

There is a case to be made that the government cannot own TikTok without infringing on someone's free speech rights.

[Ken Shultz]

"Trump Says He Will Issue an Order to Reopen TikTok in the U.S.
President-elect also wants the country to have an ownership stake in the app. ‘By doing this, we save TikTok.’"

----WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/tech/tiktok-goes-dark-for-u-s-users-while-trump-signals-he-will-save-it-0370b227?

[Don't look at me!]

Is this the original Ken?

[mad.casual]

I was gonna say, "Holy Shit!"

First glance, that's way too few paragraphs to be The Ken Schultz.

Real test, and it's somewhat pointed or coincidental that you question if he's the real Ken, will he insist that EVs are just really popular?

[Ken Shultz]

The argument wasn't that they were popular. The argument was that given the premium consumers were paying for them at the time, there was no reason to think there was insufficient demand--at the time. The argument was that the other auto manufacturers were chasing the p/e of Tesla's stock--which had a market capitalization like a tech company rather than a boring car company. And that's why they were building so many EVs. So a libertarian looks at market signals to estimate demand--at the moment--what's so strange about that?

Incidentally, when you look at the market data now, there's no premium associated with electric cars--not like there used to be.

I recently saw an auto dealer in Colorado that was offering a 27 month lease on a Fiat 500e. You put zero money down and you pay zero dollars per month on the lease. You still have to pay for Colorado sales tax and registration, and Colorado has a big subsidy that makes that lease work for the dealer. But still, no one would say now that the "premium" consumers pay to lease that electric car suggests that consumer demand is high.

https://driving.ca/auto-news/crashes/fiat-500e-ev-lease-colorado-free-zero-dollars

[mad.casual]

The argument wasn't that they were popular.

The argument was to distract from worldwide thumb-on-the-scale government pressure and to pretend that EVs aren't literally and openly the four-wheeled embodiment of the WEF, ESG agenda no matter how you spin the financing... and it was obvious.

You searched the internet for leases of *Fiat* *500e*'s *at a single Goddamned dealer* in Colorado as proof of... something? You're as bad as sarc or mtrueman, and you didn't used to be.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Isn’t it ‘Schultz’ and not ‘Shultz’?

[mad.casual]

Yeah, I think you're right about that. What struck and still strikes me is that his member ID is ancient.

[Ken Shultz]

You're not right about that. It's always been "Shultz" with[out] a "c".

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Verified it is you. See

https://reason.com/2021/12/15/net-neutrality-fcc-repeal-internet-faster-better/?comments=true#comment-9258891

Glad you're back.

That's the sarc melts down from you muting him thread.

[Don't look at me!]

[Ken Shultz]

The argument was about whether we should trust market signals or something else. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, but my bet is almost always on market signals in real time. And that thinking doesn't go away just because Biden is in charge. Biden may have been right for the wrong reasons when he was in harmony with market signals.

The market can and does turn on a dime. When market signals tell us that people want to pay a huge premium to have their nipples pierced, as hard as that may be to believe, we're better off assuming the market signals right--for the moment.

But what markets signals are telling us in real time is just like the fundamental problem of science. The data we get tomorrow may contradict everything we believed when we were limited to only having the data we have today. The scientific consensus needs to be revised when new data becomes available that conflicts with what we know now.

It's the same thing with market data. Because subsequent data shows us that EVs are were over manufactured right now, doesn't ,mean that we shouldn't have believed they were under manufactured back when the market data suggested there weren't enough of them.

[mad.casual]

And, as indicated below, I never thought I'd see the day when:
Trump Tweet: I'm meeting with the Joint Chiefs...
Elizabeth Nolan Brown Ken Schultz: OMG! We're going to war! It's WWIII!

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

If this is the real Ken, can you unmute and mute sarc again for another epic melt down?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

How far CAN we push Sarc? I for one would like to find out.

[mad.casual]

Second glance - The specific highlight and ambiguous misinterpretation of "The president-elect said he wants the U.S. to have a 50% ownership position" leads me to very much believe this is not the original Ken. Ken would know better than to assume or deliberately construe that when Trump says, "the US to have 50% ownership" he means "the US Government to have 50% ownership" rather than "some assemblage of US tech companies/moguls to have 50% ownership". Frequently making that specific point, or similar himself. He may've even been the one originally originally start summing up the distinction re: "taking him at his word vs. understanding what he means". And he would know better than to argue against the latter conception since something like it has been a part of US trade policy dating back to (before) 1789. If it is Ken, which I'm doubting at this point, he used to be far more meticulous and articulate, if not just verbose.

[Ken Shultz]

It's not the percentage of the ownership that matters, it's the impact of U.S. Government ownership.

In addition to opposing Obama's nationalization of GM because I'm a capitalist, Trump's apparent desire to partially nationalize TikTok will have all sorts or First Amendment problems. And it will ultimately serve to help progressive impose their wokeness crusade on social media.

One of the biggest reasons why the universities because such a hotbed of wokeness was because of the government imposing on them--because they accept government money. If the government owns it, they won't need to justify imposing themselves on it over First Amendment objections. It's theirs.

You know what it reminds me of? Remember that scene in Dr. Strangelove, when the ex-Nazi can't stop himself from seig heiling the President of the United States because the POTUS has accomplished through incompetence what Hitler failed to accomplish through the holocaust?

If Trump really goes through with giving the government a stake in TikTok, he'll be like that president in the movie. The progressives plotted and fought and connived and lied all in an attempt to get their hands on the steering wheel of social media. People thought Trump was finally saving us from that, with Musk and Zuck dropping wokeism like a bad habit. And then Trump comes along and hands the progressives TikTok on a silver platter. Yeah, Trump will be in office for the next four years, but the progressives will (someday) be in charge again. If what Trump wants to happen happens, it'll turn TikTok into something left of MSNBC.

[mad.casual]

It's not the percentage of the ownership that matters, it's the impact of U.S. Government ownership.

Yeah, you aren't Ken. Ken wasn't this sloppy and stupid.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Could it be Pedo Jeffy? It’s the sort of thing Fatfuck would do.

[Ken Shultz]

There isn't anything sloppy or stupid about that. If the U.S. government owns 1% of TikTok or 50% of TikTok, it doesn't really matter.

When Citadel was fighting government mandates to admit women, it didn't matter if they were getting 1% of their support from government or 50% of their support from government. Because they were taking money from the government, they had to comply.

The point is that the influence the government has over TikTok will be dramatic so long as the government owns any of it. If you remember, TARP worked the same way. Obama made it illegal for the banks to pay back their TARP money--because he wanted the government to be able to set things like executive salaries--and as soon as they paid that TARP money back, regulators would lose their control.

You may even remember that some of the banks didn't want the TARP money because they knew it came with all sorts of strings attached, and Obama forced them to take that money anyway.

Oh, and it didn't matter if the money they were given through TARP represented 50% of their stock price or 1% of their stock price. So long as they were the beneficiaries of any government money, they were under the regulators' thumb.

P.S. I'd still be Ken (or not) even if I were being sloppy and stupid.

[mad.casual]

P.S. I'd still be Ken (or not) even if I were being sloppy and stupid.

No, you wouldn't. You would be someone imitating Ken.

P.S. - It's obvious.

[Don't look at me!]

And sad.

[Ken Shultz]

I have often been wrong. I've even been sloppy and stupid.

And during all those times, I was always Ken.

[Ken Shultz]

Do you have Ken's old email address?

Send him an email. See if he responds.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

It's Ken, i verified it in a 3 year old thread.

[Quicktown Brix]

"President-elect Donald Trump said he would issue an executive order on Monday to reinstate TikTok in the U.S.

I'm clearly on record opposing this law, but If congess passes it, it's signed in to law and SCOTUS upholds it, there's no way it should be able to be undone by executive order.

[Ken Shultz]

I supported the law.

The First Amendment doesn't protect the freedom to violate someone's rights with your speech any more than the Second Amendment protects the freedom to violate someone's rights with a gun. If you use a gun to rob a bank, the Second Amendment doesn't even come into it. It's the same way with speech. Committing perjury on the witness stand with my speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Perpetrating fraud with my speech is not protected by the First Amendment. And these aren't exceptions to the rule.

The First Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't grant any rights. The only rights you have as a citizen, really, is the right to vote and the right to hold office. Everything else is a natural right. Tony would tell you that our rights only exist if the government says so. That belief is the essential assumption of authoritarianism, and probably why Tony was a progressive.

I maintain that the Rosenbergs didn't have a First Amendment right to communicate the designs of our nuclear weapons to the USSR. Violating people's rights with our speech simply isn't a First Amendment issue--just like the freedom to violate the rights of a cashier using a gun isn't protected by the Second Amendment. The Rosenbers communicating our nuclear weapon designs to the USSR was like a bank robber writing a note to a bank teller saying that he has a bomb and he's going to blow them all to hell if she doesn't empty the safe.

I maintain that TikTok communicating information of a strategic value to our enemies in China is just like the Rosenbergs communicating sensitive information to the USSR. China hacked AT&T and Verizon in order to get similar information--and if we let China hoover such information in broad daylight, it would be incredibly incompetent. I maintain that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals. We have courts to protect our rights from the police. We have foreign policy and a military to protect our rights from foreign threats.

Congress forcing a sale of TikTok to someone who can't use it to collect information to use against us in an upcoming conflict is entirely in harmony with the legitimate purpose of government, It is entirely in harmony with the Constitution. And it's entirely in harmony with the First Amendment.

[Ken Shultz]

P.S. None of that means I want Trump to nationalize TikTok. Forcing a sale of TikTok to someone other than a company controlled by a country that's preparing for war against us may not be a First Amendment issue, but government ownership of social media is a serious First Amendment issue--among other objections.

[Quicktown Brix]

I appreciate the detailed explanation here. I agree about your take on natural rights andn1A being a restriction on government.

As for the Rosenburgs, I don't recall all the details, but I assume they had government clearance meaning they agreed to hold secrets. They committed a breech od contract by divulging info to the soviets. Had they figured out the secrets on their own, they'd have the right to sell it to the Soviets.

If tiktok is stealing information more than is in their privacy contract, that is criminal. So far I haven't seen anyone show this is the case. It's our right to give our personal info to CCP for the benefit of the app if we so choose. This is also a natural right, I feel.

[Ken Shultz]

There are other problems besides giving your own information to the CCP. TikTok also has access to the contacts on your phone. I don't have TikTok on my phone. Why is my contact information being supplied to the CCP by people who do? We're giving the CCP a treasure trove of data to mine--to an adversary that's planning to go to war against us.

Imagine if the data the Rosenbergs communicated to the USSR was already being communicated to the USSR legally through legal means. Imagine our nuclear weapons plans were being sent to every library in America. All this law really does is correct that incompetence. It doesn't even take away the CCP's ability (or their right) to communicate freely on TikTok (or any other social media platform).

The unanimous Supreme Court decision was unanimous in its finding 1) that this law sets no precedent on speech and 2) that this law has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It's simply addressing the woefully incompetent practice of giving the CCP a treasure trove of data to mine and use against us. Location data of is a big deal . The TikTop app also records every site you visit. There are LGBT kids who have been driven to suicide by hackers threatening to expose them to their family and peers. Is someone in a sensitive position picking up hookers online? Do his wife and kids know? Can that be exploited by the CCP?

Maybe I should ask you, I think it was awful that the NSA was tracking our emails, text messages, contacts, etc. through surveillance. As much as I distrust them, why should we let the CCP collect similar data on the American people? The courts have a legitimate obligation to protect our rights from the NSA. Congress, the president, and the Court also have a legitimate obligation to protect our rights from the CCP.

Are you aware of the hacks the CCP perpetrated against AT&T and Verizon to get this kind of data? Are you aware of the Chinese balloon Biden decided to let float across the country? Are you aware of the Chinese police station the CCP was running in New York City to use to target dissidents here in the USA? Have you seen the way photos on social media are being used to track targeting, troop deployments, and troop locations in the Ukraine conflict?

Does the First Amendment protect the right of any individual to unwittingly compromise the security of the American people by broadcasting data that can be mined by an enemy with nuclear missiles pointed at us? This decision doesn't even address that question. Nothing in the bill or the Supreme Court decision speaks to that question at all. People are still free to broadcast pretty much what they want on TikTok, YouTube, etc. It's just that the data can't go straight to a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCP as standard operating procedue.

Depriving the CCP of this data to use against us simply isn't a First Amendment issue. As a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCP, it isn't about TikTok's rights either. If TikTok can't operate in the United States because of the laws of China or the behavior or the CCP, then they should blame that on the CCP. The U.S. government has a legitimate obligation to protect the rights of U.S. citizens from foreign threats. As far as the Supreme Court decision, the CCP can still broadcast propaganda in the USA if they want.

My understanding is that "Russia Today" was still broadcasting in the United States until 2022. I think the various broadcasters who were broadcasting that program were subjected to the rage of the American public in the wake of Russia trying to overrun Ukraine completely. My understanding is that you can still access "Russia Today" from the United States. It's just that they laid off their American news crew and broadcast mostly from the Russia Today London office. All this is to say that neither the law in question nor the Supreme Court decision violates anybody's First Amendment rights--even the CCP can still say what they want.

[Quicktown Brix]

Maybe I should ask you...

Yes, I was aware of all of that except the troop locations. It makes total sense to limit soldiers app access though. It should not affect the rest of the citizens.

I get where you're coming from. You explained your points well. I follow your logic and I won't fool myself that I can change your mind. The best I can do is explain how I differ and came to a different conclusion:

I don't believe Tiktok gives access to any data that China doesn't have access to anyway, especially for someone in an important position within US government. I think all major governments have access to all but the highest security communications.

I think this was a failed political stunt that will be the last embarrassment of a ridiculously embarrassing administration that never missed an opportunity to try to control speech.

[BYODB]

It remains unclear why you think the U.S. government would own part of TikTok. As little as I've followed this case, I'm aware of it and I have seen it mentioned zero times that this is a nationalization effort versus a forced sale to a private firm. Also as far as I'm aware, the U.S. government has not suggested exactly who TikTok must sell to.

Where have you seen it said otherwise, beyond the statements of a President who we already know isn't the most concise source.

[BYODB]

Nevermind, there is another story on this subject that has more information that seems to indicate at first blush that this is what is being suggested and if true is pretty gross.

[mad.casual]

Again, whether it's a new Ken or if it's Dr. Jill Shultz posting under Ken's account, old Ken would've been more careful to quote the specific and/or contractual details rather than "A President wants" and "the US" from an MSM source (behind a paywall).

[Public Entelectual]

A bas les Jacobins Jaunes!

[TJJ2000]

I'm more worried about the precedence this sets.

The 'KING' gets to over-rule the Congress & the SCOTUS now?

As much as I despise SCOTUS throwing the 1st Amendment under the bus. Having all the POWER end up under the 'KING' is just a sh*t topping on a sh*t pie.

[DesigNate]

If they wrote the law to allow him to do such, it’s not necessarily “King” territory.

[Quicktown Brix]

Yeah, it looks like they did write the law as you suggest. Figures. Congress loves to delegate away its power.

[Kungpowderfinger]

So we shutdown stupid fucking TikTok, but we still can’t make a barstool for $300 in this country.

I have a feeling that China could make this real ugly for the good ol’ USA.

[TJJ2000]

^THIS. Well everyone decided only Gov-'Guns' can make sh*t in their lives the right way. Never realizing those 'Guns' don't actually make sh*t what-so-ever so now we can all 'Gun' down the last twinkie in existence in our bankrupt socialist h*llhole.

Socialism is literally the opposite of Liberty and Justice for all.