Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
mquander | on: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
It's possible for people who aren't currently the president to do things.
ceejayoz | 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.
wat10000 | root | parent
That doesn’t mean much when he’s about to go.
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…
deadbabe | root | parent
it turns out that sometimes what you find out is that nothing happens after you’ve fucked around.
loading story #42763912
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 | 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.

immibis | root | parent
Israel already broke the peace deal btw, but as with a lot of Israel news, you'll be unlikely to see that reported on.
loading story #42768193
GeneralMayhem | 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.

sethammons | root | parent | next
> He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon

For very weak definitions of power. Zuck didn't wait to bend a knee until the inauguration. Because power.

Karrot_Kream | root | parent | next
Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn to read:

(a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

(b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act.

(c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—

(1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination.

^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from.

===

> Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.

Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition power.

flanked-evergl | root | parent
Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that something is part of the constitution based on absolutely nothing. Bro … after what Biden and Kahmahlah did, there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden and Kahmahlah did.
loading story #42766977
loading story #42768224
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.