Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
nico | on: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement

They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them

Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

TeaBrain | parent | next
The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those who already had the app installed. It just prevented new updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the law is just the second act.
honorious | root | parent
The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they continued to provide services to Bytedance.

As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the app isn't distributed in the US anymore.

loading story #42763740
loading story #42764460
loading story #42765416
ceejayoz | parent | next
They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.
extheat | root | parent | next
They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.
paulddraper | root | parent | next
> formal understanding

I think you mean "campaign promise."

No legally significant action has been taken between now and yesterday.

loading story #42764775
kllrnohj | root | parent
I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care.

It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.

loading story #42766323
loading story #42765767
Retric | root | parent
It’s federal law, and the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

The courts on the other hand can permanently block laws.

insane_dreamer | root | parent | next
> the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

no, the president can pardon individuals convicted of a criminal law, which is not at all what you describe here

loading story #42764557
loading story #42764742
mr_00ff00 | root | parent | next
This feels like a stretch, I don’t think it’s a pardon they are after. Pardons don’t really work like that.

TikTok I think was going for more of a shock factor. Maybe even without talking to Trump they have credited him as restoring it, might seem weird for him to “go back on it”.

Or maybe it’s to put him in good light.

loading story #42764034
cyanydeez | root | parent | next
Also, the technical bit serms entirely on app distributors.

This is the internet.

psyklic | root | parent
The President can offer pardons for criminal matters. However, he is required to uphold laws passed by Congress, particularly bipartisan ones affirmed by the Supreme Court.

For example, why would the President have a veto power if he can simply post-facto ignore laws they pass?

loading story #42765310
loading story #42763710
loading story #42765233
loading story #42764753
loading story #42763802
loading story #42764400
loading story #42764627
loading story #42763745
Brystephor | parent | next
Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban?

I understand that there was this law. It's a political statement because of the political message being sent out to the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a political statement.

acomms | parent | next
Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only theatre.
aaronharnly | parent | next
The law did not require them to suspend the service.
space_fountain | root | parent | next
The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally
margalabargala | root | parent
The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.
kelnos | root | parent
No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend service.

It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.

ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date and stop working (for people who already had it installed on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to work just fine.

loading story #42766681
loading story #42768806
Osiris | parent | next
But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.
hbn | parent | next
It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a great demonstration that people want their Tiktok.

* Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning it

* Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does

Seems like a smart move to me.

loading story #42769889
LastTrain | parent | next
But bringing the service back again today is not following the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if you've now changed your mind.
immibis | root | parent
Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.
modriano | root | parent
A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was the last day of his administration, so enforcement by Biden wasn't even possible)

This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.

loading story #42772345
| parent | next
{"deleted":true,"id":42764287,"parent":42763125,"time":1737339217,"type":"comment"}
space_fountain | parent
They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed
glenstein | root | parent
That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.

If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.