US passes bill to ban TikTok unless Chinese owner sells platform

[EnterpriseSovereign]

US passes bill to ban TikTok unless Chinese owner sells platform

The US has moved closer to an outright ban of TikTok unless its China-based owner sells the social media platform.

Politicians have been pushing for the ban after concerns that the company's current structure is a national security threat.

TikTok has more than 150 million users in the US alone and is owned entirely as a subsidiary of Chinese tech firm ByteDance Ltd.

US politicians calling for the ban have contended that ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government, who could push for US user data to be released to them at any time.

The worry stems from Chinese national security laws that compel organisations to assist with intelligence gathering.

The bill, passed by a vote of 352-65, now goes to the Senate, where its prospects are unclear.

What happens next?

House passage of the bill is only the first step. The Senate would also need to pass the measure for it to become law, and politicians in that chamber indicated it would undergo a thorough review.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan has said the aim is to end Chinese ownership, not outright ban TikTok.

“We have given TikTok a clear choice,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. “Separate from your parent company ByteDance, which is beholden to the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party), and remain operational in the United States, or side with the CCP and face the consequences.

"The choice is TikTok's," he added.

President Joe Biden has said if Congress passes the measure, he will sign it. The vote opens a new front in the feud between US politicians and the tech industry.

Members of Congress have long been critical of tech platforms and their expansive influence, often clashing with executives over industry practices.

But by targeting TikTok, politicians are singling out a platform popular with millions of people, many of whom are of a younger demographic, just months before an election.

What does TikTok say?

TikTok has long denied that it could be used as a tool of the Chinese government.

The company has said it has never shared US user data with Chinese authorities and won’t do so if it is asked.

To date, the US government also has not provided any evidence that shows TikTok shared such information with Chinese authorities.

Security briefings have seemingly changed few minds, instead solidifying the views of both sides - those who back the platform and those who think of it as a tool for Chinese intelligence gathering.

It is unclear if China would approve of the sale of the platform or if it could go ahead in the next few months.

There are also question marks surrounding who would actually buy it. Although if the legislation is passed, it could make the sale price cheaper.

What would happen to TikTok users?

The app is used by around 170 million people in the US.

If the app is banned, it would be removed from app stores in the US, including Apple's app store and Google. It would also be blocked on web hosting services.

This would remain the case unless ByteDance went on to sell TikTok.

Users will likely to still be able to use the app if they use a virtual private network (VPNs) that can bypass restrictions.

[Ralin]

Word of mouth, but I heard a disproportionate amount of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian content is making the rounds on TikTok. Wouldn't be surprised if that gives the usual Sinophobia behind this more wings than the last time they tried to ban it

[Solauren]

Banning Websites is virtually impossible. Even if you manage to get every ISP to agree to it, you'd also have to do that to VPNS. Since you can get a VPN from any country, you'd also have to start banning the VPNS that didn't co-operate, etc, etc, etc.

[Ralin]

Banning a website doesn't mean making it physically impossible to access. Most people won't be willing to bother with a VPN, and obviously it affects their ability to do business in the country in question.

[Solauren]

Banning a website doesn't mean making it physically impossible to access. Most people won't be willing to bother with a VPN, and obviously it affects their ability to do business in the country in question.

You'd be surprised how many people I know use VPNS for stuff. And all you have to do is set up a third party company for billing purposes to bypass the ban.

[Gandalf]

You'd be surprised how many people I know use VPNS for stuff. And all you have to do is set up a third party company for billing purposes to bypass the ban.

The ease of Tik Tok is that you can open it up for instant content with little effort. Adding a VPN layer is going to slow a lot of people.

[Rogue 9]

From what's been reported, the bill will ban the app from U.S. based app stores. I don't know if it will also IP block existing installations from the United States but it didn't sound like it.

In any case, a bunch of Senators want to hold hearings before moving on the bill, so it isn't going to pass quickly.

[Ralin]

And all you have to do is set up a third party company for billing purposes to bypass the ban.

Guys it's fine, just set up a third party company now that the United States Congress has gone through the trouble of banning you specifically from operating in the US on national security grounds. It's easy, not like they can do anything about it!

God you're stupid.

[LadyTevar]

THis bill needs killed off ASAP.

Not because it affects me, I don't TikTok.
Simple because I don't like the PRECEDENT it will set, allowing Congress to go after Social Media.

[3-Body Problem]

This is just as insidiously bad as things like SOPA and PIPA were. The more governments and gigantic corporations control the internet the worse things will get.

[Formless]

I'll bet you that if this passes, there are a whole bunch of politicians who will lose their careers the instant Gen Z is old enough to vote.

[Gandalf]

Interestingly, Trump is against the Tik Tok ban. So this could help him with younger voters.

[Solauren]

And all you have to do is set up a third party company for billing purposes to bypass the ban.

Guys it's fine, just set up a third party company now that the United States Congress has gone through the trouble of banning you specifically from operating in the US on national security grounds. It's easy, not like they can do anything about it!

God you're stupid.

Wow, you're a moron.

That's how you get around government bans and blocks in the US and Canada (probably most of Europe too).

Example - Contractor that owes the government money and they are garnishing your wages? Set up a corporation, and have that corporation bill people for your services, and then just take your pay from the corporate bank as expenses. The government now has hold the third party company accountable, and put seperate legal actions in place against them. By the time they've done that, you've opened another company. Rinse and Repeat.

Same idea.

If Tiktok can't do business in the United States, a third party still can, and then Tiktok just bills/pays them instead. now, the US government has to ban that third party instead.

Why?

Because the US recognizes them all as seperate legal entities, even if they have the same fucking owners!

[Ralin]

Wow, you're a moron.

That's how you get around government bans and blocks in the US and Canada (probably most of Europe too).

Example - Contractor that owes the government money and they are garnishing your wages? Set up a corporation, and have that corporation bill people for your services, and then just take your pay from the corporate bank as expenses. The government now has hold the third party company accountable, and put seperate legal actions in place against them. By the time they've done that, you've opened another company. Rinse and Repeat.

Same idea.

If Tiktok can't do business in the United States, a third party still can, and then Tiktok just bills/pays them instead. now, the US government has to ban that third party instead.

Why?

Because the US recognizes them all as seperate legal entities, even if they have the same fucking owners!

So are you trolling or just too dumb to understand why a company being declared a national security threat by Congress would make the government motivated enough to shove those loopholes up the company's ass instead of playing ball?

[AniThyng]

I would have thought the director of a corporation will be liable if the corporation is breaking the law, this seems like a strong disincentive to that approach.

[Solauren]

Wow, you're a moron.

That's how you get around government bans and blocks in the US and Canada (probably most of Europe too).

Example - Contractor that owes the government money and they are garnishing your wages? Set up a corporation, and have that corporation bill people for your services, and then just take your pay from the corporate bank as expenses. The government now has hold the third party company accountable, and put seperate legal actions in place against them. By the time they've done that, you've opened another company. Rinse and Repeat.

Same idea.

If Tiktok can't do business in the United States, a third party still can, and then Tiktok just bills/pays them instead. now, the US government has to ban that third party instead.

Why?

Because the US recognizes them all as seperate legal entities, even if they have the same fucking owners!

So are you trolling or just too dumb to understand why a company being declared a national security threat by Congress would make the government motivated enough to shove those loopholes up the company's ass instead of playing ball?

Since throwing insults seems to be your strong point - how can someone like you have this level of brain-damage, and still operate a keyboard? (Is this your method of flirting? If so, I'm flattered, but not interested).

But, to be serious.... the US starting to ignore their own laws like that would be political and possibly economic suicide. Every major corporation with interest in the United States would (and should) bulk if the US government did that. And possibly start withdrawing from the United States. Because it shows the US is willing to take away all the nice legal protections that those corporations relay on, and yes have paid to have built up for them.

It would also show a shift towards Putin-esque tactics I don't think anyone would be comfortable with.

BUT, along your vein, the safer thing for the US government to do would be to declare 'any company working with TIKTOK, in any capacity, will be investigated for being an US Security threat'. (I can also see them 'any individual workng with Tiktok....)

Now, instead of those nice legal protections every company that operates or does business with the United States enjoy being torpedoed, those companies have a choice - work with a US Security Threat, and be considered to effectively be saying they don't want those legal protections, or stop/not do business with Tiktok.

[Gandalf]

That's how you get around government bans and blocks in the US and Canada (probably most of Europe too).

Example - Contractor that owes the government money and they are garnishing your wages? Set up a corporation, and have that corporation bill people for your services, and then just take your pay from the corporate bank as expenses. The government now has hold the third party company accountable, and put seperate legal actions in place against them. By the time they've done that, you've opened another company. Rinse and Repeat.

Same idea.

If Tiktok can't do business in the United States, a third party still can, and then Tiktok just bills/pays them instead. now, the US government has to ban that third party instead.

Why?

Because the US recognizes them all as seperate legal entities, even if they have the same fucking owners!

Does the US not have phoenixing laws? I've tried Google, but all of the results are Australian, so I assume it probably has a different name there.

[Solauren]

I would have thought the director of a corporation will be liable if the corporation is breaking the law, this seems like a strong disincentive to that approach.

That's actually a complicated issue. I'm not sure of the legalities in the United States, as it's a patchwork of Federal and State laws.

In Canada, there is a concept called Directors Liability. I can discuss that for the purposes of Federal Taxes.
Under the various tax acts, if a corporation is unable to meet their tax liabilities, then the director can be held accountable for those liabilities, in full for the time they were a director (and possibly before they were a director too). They can not be held for liabilities that occurred after they legally and actually ceased to be a director.

i.e I become the director of a company that owes taxes from 2020 - 2022. In theory, I could be held as taking responsibility, and therefore liable for that tax debt. (and in the course of my job, have held people to that accountability on a case by case basis). The conditions and examples for that would take me several hours to type up if I had the book in front me me. It's largely a study of case law when you get down to it.

i.e I was the director of a company from 2000 - 2010, and then resigned in Jan 2010 (complete with properly filled paperwork), and a new director took over. The company started generating a liability to the government the following fiscal quarter (for the sake of dates, let's say April 2010). Despite being a director in 2010, since I resigned previous to the start of the liability, I could not be held for it. (Especially if I went through all the steps needed to disengage myself from any financial connections to the company. i.e removal of from all bank accounts.)

However, if I hadn't filled the paperwork properly, or there was no record but 'my word', I could be. If my name was still on the bank accounts as having signing authority, I would be (See below).

i.e On record, I was director of a company from 2000 - 2010, and resigned Jan 7, 2010. Proper paperwork and everything. A new director took over, who happened to be me former secretary, with me moving to lower managerial position. The company then runs up lot of debt to the government. If an investigation showed my former secretary was not acting as the director, but I actually was, I would be held as 'defacto', and liable for the debt. Especially if I still has signing authority on the corporate bank accounts.

This is one of the few cases of directory liability that can be argued against successfully in court. The other is the 'previous years to my being their' tax debt scenario, provided you took steps prior to being a director to shield yourself.


Now, this can (and does) apply to criminal matters as well. However, there is another department that deals with that.

However, the laws are as much made to hold the corporation (as a legal entity, that actually has rights) to account, as they are to shield the directors and shareholders from them.

[Solauren]

That's how you get around government bans and blocks in the US and Canada (probably most of Europe too).

Example - Contractor that owes the government money and they are garnishing your wages? Set up a corporation, and have that corporation bill people for your services, and then just take your pay from the corporate bank as expenses. The government now has hold the third party company accountable, and put seperate legal actions in place against them. By the time they've done that, you've opened another company. Rinse and Repeat.

Same idea.

If Tiktok can't do business in the United States, a third party still can, and then Tiktok just bills/pays them instead. now, the US government has to ban that third party instead.

Why?

Because the US recognizes them all as seperate legal entities, even if they have the same fucking owners!

Does the US not have phoenixing laws? I've tried Google, but all of the results are Australian, so I assume it probably has a different name there.

Look up director liability. That's covers it in Canada. Might be the same in the US.

[LadyTevar]

Does the US not have phoenixing laws? I've tried Google, but all of the results are Australian, so I assume it probably has a different name there.

That is a very good question. I don't know, and I'm about to go to work so I can see what the Library has about it, but I've never heard of anything where the Director of the Company was liable for anything like that.

[Ralin]

BUT, along your vein, the safer thing for the US government to do would be to declare 'any company working with TIKTOK, in any capacity, will be investigated for being an US Security threat'. (I can also see them 'any individual workng with Tiktok....)

Now, instead of those nice legal protections every company that operates or does business with the United States enjoy being torpedoed, those companies have a choice - work with a US Security Threat, and be considered to effectively be saying they don't want those legal protections, or stop/not do business with Tiktok.

So, to be clear, your reaction to being told it's stupid to think that the US government wouldn't be able to shut down any loopholes TikTok tried to exploit to get around Congress banning them from operating in the US is to give an example of how the US government could do that?

It would also show a shift towards Putin-esque tactics I don't think anyone would be comfortable with.

Despite being fine with taking a leaf from the Chinese government's book by banning TikTok.

[Solauren]

BUT, along your vein, the safer thing for the US government to do would be to declare 'any company working with TIKTOK, in any capacity, will be investigated for being an US Security threat'. (I can also see them 'any individual workng with Tiktok....)

Now, instead of those nice legal protections every company that operates or does business with the United States enjoy being torpedoed, those companies have a choice - work with a US Security Threat, and be considered to effectively be saying they don't want those legal protections, or stop/not do business with Tiktok.

So, to be clear, your reaction to being told it's stupid to think that the US government wouldn't be able to shut down any loopholes TikTok tried to exploit to get around Congress banning them from operating in the US is to give an example of how the US government could do that?

It would also show a shift towards Putin-esque tactics I don't think anyone would be comfortable with.

Despite being fine with taking a leaf from the Chinese government's book by banning TikTok.

Your approach seemed to be 'working with TikTok - BAN it immediately as well'. Completely unworkable.
Mine was to show how to actually do it in a way that would actually be workable.

[Mr Bean]

So coming back around on this thread let me just asking the question, how exactly is the House Bill any more legal than the last three attempts to Ban Tiktok?
NPR

If the House bill eventually becomes law, won't there be a legal challenge?

It is all but certain that TikTok will try to have a ban overturned in the courts.

Legal experts say shutting down a social media platform in the name of national security is something that can only be accomplished if the security threat is overwhelming.

Otherwise, it will likely be considered an infringement of the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans, if the government cannot show that the speech constraint is justified.

"Restricting Americans' right to access information or ideas on a media platform from abroad implicates the First Amendment. There's really no dispute about that," said Jaffer with the Knight First Amendment Institute

Previous attempts to shutter TikTok in the U.S. have not been successful.

Three separate federal district judges have blocked efforts to ban TikTok — two courts during the Trump administration, and one U.S. court more recently in Montana.

Judge Wendy Beetlestone found in 2020 that TikTok's national security threat is "phrased in the hypothetical."

In late 2023, judge Donald Molloy said that a crusade by officials in Montana to block TikTok within the state's borders had a "pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment."

Many constitutional scholars say banning TikTok requires clearing nearly insurmountable legal hurdles.

Or to quote the far more fun to read Mike Masnick over at Techdirt

I stand by the point we’ve been making for multiple years now: banning TikTok is a stupid, performative, unconstitutional, authoritarian move that doesn’t do even the slightest bit to stop China from (1) getting data on Americans or (2) using propaganda to try to influence people (which are the two issues most frequently used to justify a ban).

Banning TikTok, rather than passing comprehensive federal privacy legislation, is nothing but xenophobic theater. China can (and does) already buy a ton of data on Americans because we refuse to pass any regulation regarding data brokers who make this data available (contrary to popular opinion, Facebook and Google don’t actually sell your data, but data brokers who collect it from lots of other sources do).

Meanwhile, there’s little to no evidence that China is “manipulating” sentiment with TikTok, and there’s even less evidence that it would be effective if they were trying to do so. Public sentiment in the US regarding China is reaching record lows, with the vast majority of Americans reasonably concerned about China’s role in the world. So if China is using TikTok to propagandize to Americans, it’s doing a shitty job of it.

The US has dealt with foreign propaganda for ages. And we don’t ban it. Part of free speech is that you have to deal with the fact that nonsense propaganda and disinformation exists. There are ways to deal with it and respond to it that don’t involve banning speech. It’s astounding to me how quickly people give up their principles out of a weird, xenophobic fear that somehow China has magic pixie dust hidden within TikTok to turn Americans’ brains to mush.

The Supreme Court has reviewed this kind of thing before and said that, no the US cannot ban foreign propaganda just because it’s scared of what that propaganda says. In that case, the government sought to restrict the delivery of “communist political propaganda” from outside the country. The court struck down the restriction on First Amendment grounds, stating that it was “a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the [recipient’s] First Amendment rights.”

As the court noted in that case, the setup of the law was “at war with the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate and discussion that are contemplated by the First Amendment.”

In the US, we’re supposed to believe in freedom of speech, even if that freedom of speech comes in the form of “foreign communist propaganda.” If we survived that same foreign communist propaganda for decades in other forms, it seems like we can survive it coming from an app designed to highlight short videos of dance moves.

In summary banning Tiktok is stupid, if China wants our personal information they can buy it from Meta, X-twitter or any one of a dozen other websites who have only been to happy to sell every scrap of data on us because hey it's legal. The entire ban reads as old men mad at internet thing that is popular rather than intelligent law making to stop a threat against the United States.

So in short the Tiktok ban does not help with the thing it claims to help nor does it look likely to survive constitutional challenge. It's a stupid waste of everyone time but hey it does serve to piss of young people good job House.

[Solauren]

My wife was watching something last night that said the real reason the US wants to ban TikTok is some rich asshole wants to own it, can't, so he's trying to get the government to ban it to force a sale.

No idea if that's true.

[Rogue 9]

As to director liability/phoenixing laws/whatever you want to call it, apparently it can happen at least in New York; see what has recently happened to Donald Trump in the criminal fraud case (i.e. he is personally banned from operating any real estate business in New York whether it's the Trump Organization or otherwise).