Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
iknowSFR | on: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
What’s the evidence of this? It seems highly plausible but do we have any proof besides speculation?
willis936 | parent | next
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.
agumonkey | root | parent | next
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.
throwaway173738 | root | parent | next
I’m going to go found a place I’ll call Galt’s Gulch for maximum irony.
arp242 | root | parent
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").
lubujackson | root | parent | next
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.

ceejayoz | root | parent | next
I got an internal ad on Facebook telling me to connect my TikTok account the other day.

https://imgur.com/a/yCOpifC

threecheese | root | parent
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.
throwawayq3423 | root | parent | next
I'm old enough to remember when selling out the American people to the CCP would have been a career ending scandal.
pjc50 | root | parent
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.

1659447091 | root | parent | next
> 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

pizza | root | parent
> 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?

mquander | root | parent | next
It's possible for people who aren't currently the president to do things.
ceejayoz | root | parent | next
“Be President while the other guy still is” is not one of them.
wat10000 | root | parent | next
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.
anon7000 | root | parent | next
The current president already said he didn’t intend to enforce the ban anyways.
loading story #42771490
Applejinx | root | parent
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…
loading story #42763584
ruraljuror | root | parent | next
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.
latency-guy2 | root | parent
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.

root_axis | root | parent
> 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?

tw04 | root | parent | next
It’s actually illegal for people who aren’t currently the president to negotiate as if they were.
| root | parent | next
{"deleted":true,"id":42763636,"parent":42763338,"time":1737332710,"type":"comment"}
afiori | root | parent
Declaring your intent to create an executive order the next day is not a negotiation
throwawayq3423 | root | parent
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.

loading story #42767302
GeneralMayhem | root | parent
Okay, fine, let's play this game.

What did Trump do to get TikTok back online?

Maxatar | root | parent | next
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.
nozzlegear | root | parent | next
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

palata | root | parent
> 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.

throwawayq3423 | root | parent | next
I don't know but TikTok itself said it was because of him.
Karrot_Kream | root | parent | next
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...
GeneralMayhem | root | parent
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.

loading story #42766970
loading story #42766641
loading story #42766793
moralestapia | root | parent | next
No idea and we might never know, but, do you think ByteDance would just lie about it?
coliveira | root | parent
It is very clear that it is Trump doing the negotiations around TikTok. The current administration is at this point powerless.
somenameforme | root | parent
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.
magicalist | root | parent | next
> 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.

somenameforme | root | parent
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.
JumpCrisscross | root | parent
> 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.

anon7000 | root | parent
Presidents are allowed to offer legally binding political favors in private?
somenameforme | root | parent
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.
mihaaly | parent | next
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!?

spacecadet | parent
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.