• Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The right for a business to operate is not protected by the first amendment, though.

          I could use that argument to stop the government from closing/dismantling any physical space because I might use their walls to express my first amendment rights. But the argument just doesn’t hold up.

          • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not the right of the business, it’s the right of US citizens to consume media and information from any source they please. The Govt has no right to say “You can’t read that newspaper” or “You can’t listen to that speaker”, so they have no right to say “You can’t get information through this app”. The first amendment isn’t just about the right to speak, it’s also about the right to listen and research especially the stuff the government doesn’t want you to know about.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              But again, you can make that argument about any platform or medium where speech can be posted or displayed. If the department of public health condemns a local movie theater where I host indie movie screenings, that is not a violation of my first amendment rights because they are not prohibiting my ability to make or share content, they are simply removing the space it is currently shared. If that comes out to the same effect for some people who are all-in on TikTok to the exclusion of any other short-form video sharing service, sure, maybe there are grievances. But that still ends up being a self-imposition made by the individual at the end of the day.

              Not to mention, the US government is not trying to close down TikTok. They are prohibiting the owners of TikTok from doing business in the US. The company itself would be the one to make the decision to close the service rather than sell it off, so unless the fed is going to force a private business to keep itself open to placate the masses, it’s a decision made by a private company outside of any constitutional law.

      • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the argument would be that if money is freedom of speech then so should surveillance capitalism

    • TheMinions@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was under the impression that the TT creator fund was very minimal anyway. Or at least it was gutted recently and used to be somewhat okay.

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know why Amazon hasn’t bought TikTok yet.

    Lots of data, access to the Chinese market, a social media app under their wing, and an aligned work culture. Alongside the gains for ads, moving their shit to AWS, and retail gains, it seems like a better idea than throwing money into the AI fire.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everything is for sale when you are a $1T+ company. That’s why Amazon has the likes of Blink, Ring, Alexa, Anthropic, etc.

          • EnderMB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s…exactly why you would get involved?

            TikTok might lose out on revenue. Why not sell your US arm for lots of money?

            This is literally one of the most widely talked-about options regarding the ban of TikTok…

            • ___@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              They refused to entertain offers. 1T dollars seems mighty, but TikTok is a multi-year if not multi-decade data collection hub. That data is on the youth of America and their trajectories.

              That’s priceless to the power hungry. It’s not just money, it’s control.

              • eldavi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s priceless to the power hungry. It’s not just money, it’s control.

                that’s why their banning it; they can’t control it in the way they want

      • nucleative@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t be surprised if there was an exceptionally well funded US startup that makes a debut before TikTok is blocked if they don’t sell. TikTok has to weigh the possibility that they can’t compete if they don’t exist.

  • Gerudo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There won’t be a ban. TikTok will probably end up making a U.S. only version that will satisfy congress.

    The data will be sold to a 3rd party broker who will then keep sending it to China, so nothing will change in the end.

      • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        In case you’re serious, a video-centric social media. It focuses on short vertical videos. Naturally, they’re generally too short to have much useful information, so it’s mostly dumb addictive content, or straight up misinformation. It’s meant to feel like you’re not wasting time while you definitely are. “I am not spending 15 minutes to watch a normal video, I just watched a few (maybe 50) short (around 1 minute) videos.”

        It’s like YouTube shorts.