Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.
loading story #42755460
loading story #42768846
On the same logic, youtube, facebook, google, etc. should not be owned by the parent company in other countries than the US because of the influence they have on ppls opinions (on policital elections and whatnot)
They definitely should do that if they believe that these applications are controlled by US government.

AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.

> They definitely should do that if they believe that these applications are controlled by US government.

The goal of government entities in these types of spots is to have de facto control and/or influence without appearing to have it.

> AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.

Ummmm…

You assume there is a symmetrical relationship between the US and other nations here. There is not, hasn't been since WW2.
loading story #42765490
Maybe we should go farther. Should Samsung divest because so many Americans have a Samsung Galaxy?

Who knows what could be on those chips.

Pretty sure South Korea is considered an ally. That's how political relationships work.
Amd that will be better. No massive global corporation.
So, I guess China had it right with its great firewall then, right? I mean you have to protect your national interest against foreign corporations. I didn't know Americans would agree with CCP policies like this.
From the perspective of the Chinese government, yes.

I would say America has as much right to be upset at China blocking American websites within its borders, as China has to be upset at the US blocking Tiktok within its borders.

loading story #42759668
TikTok and the Scope of the Communications Act of 1934 Are Different The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern digital economy.

Foreign Ownership Does Not Equate to a National Security Threat There is no publicly available evidence proving that TikTok has provided U.S. user data to a foreign government. TikTok has already implemented localization measures for data storage and operations (e.g., the "Texas Project"). In contrast, many U.S. tech companies (e.g., Facebook, Google) have faced scrutiny over data privacy issues but have not been restricted due to foreign ownership. Restricting TikTok solely based on "foreign ownership" lacks factual support.

Economic Impact: TikTok Is a Lifeline for Millions TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S. According to 2023 data, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. economy and supported at least 300,000 jobs. Restricting TikTok would directly threaten the livelihoods of these individuals, causing significant harm to social stability and economic vitality.

A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban Rather than imposing a blanket restriction on TikTok, it would be more effective to strengthen data privacy protections through legislation, ensuring that all social media platforms (whether foreign or domestic) adhere to the same security standards. For example, TikTok could be required to further localize data storage and undergo independent audits. This approach would safeguard national security while avoiding unnecessary harm to users and creators.

>The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern digital economy.

I don't understand your point. Yes, TikTok and traditional media are different. But there are similarities. And you haven't pointed out any difference between them that would make a law restricting traditional media reasonable but a law restricting TikTok unreasonable.

>A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban

Why capitalize every letter of the sentence? This feels like it was generated by an LLM.

> TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S.

I very much doubt that 5 million people earn significant money from tik tok

loading story #42758667
Sure, but just because its law doesnt mean its just. If you are just talking about "the law" you are talking about something very different than everyone else. Even if its the law, its obviously a violation of the intent behind free speech to limit speech only to those who the government can intimidate. If the only way to have free speech is to be within arms reach of the government's threats you arent really a bastion of free speech, you just practice speech within the bounds of what the government will allow. And as we have recently seen, that can change dramatically depending on who is paying.
One would think that should apply to essential services like power, but here in the UK our largest energy distribution network is owned by France.