Apple To Restore TikTok To US App Store Following Justice Department Letter (9to5mac.com) 69
According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, Apple will restore TikTok to the U.S. App Store on Thursday (source paywalled; alternative source), following a letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. From the report: Apple, along with Alphabet's Google, removed TikTok in the US to comply with a law passed last year. In a Jan. 20 executive order, Trump said he instructed the attorney general "not to take any action to enforce the act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward." Apple confirmed the app will return "Thursday evening." You can find the App Store listing for TikTok here.
Developing...
Developing...
Is Trump judicial or legislative? (Score:3, Informative)
So previously, Trump used the commonly used executive tactic of ignoring a law's directives (either the direct legistative wording or in the form of a judicial order). Many presidents have done that, and it is at least arguably consitutional. But now, Trump has gone further and directly changed the meaning of a law instead of just ignoring the execution. By so doing, he is breaching separation of powers, although it's not clear if he's trying to assume legislative or judical powers.
Wow, even Xi Jinping goes through the motions of following their laws. Trump is now not even doing that.
This is how banana republics get formed. We thought that George Washington had formed the basis of an enduring democracy, which he did. Our mistake is in assuming that the democracy would continue forever. That's our fault.
Re:Is Trump judicial or legislative? (Score:4, Interesting)
"...it's not clear if he's trying to assume legislative or judical powers."
Neither. Trump isn't playing 3D chess, he's playing TicTacToe and he gets three free moves.
Trump isn't trying to assume any powers of other branches, he doesn't even know that they exist. To Trump, there are only Trump powers.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the critical moment for the United States. We get to find out if the checks and balances really work. If the judiciary can keep the President in check.
He's God emperor (Score:3, Interesting)
This particular bit of nonsense he's getting away with because nobody really wanted or expected to ban TikTok. They just wanted to take it over and use it for State sponsored propaganda.
The mistake wasn't about democracy The mistake was we allow our government to decide who can and cannot vote. Some of that is just people who don't want to let people that disagree with them vote and some of it is old farts who think it should be hard to vote for anyone but
Re:He's God emperor (Score:5, Insightful)
So last election 7 million Americans tried to vote for Kamala Harris and got turned away.
The TikTok ban was bipartisan until Trump had a change of heart about it. It might even be a small contributing factor towards Trump's victory, because he did better than was expected with the same age demographic that likes using TikTok.
It's yet another boneheaded move by the Democrats, because when you're trying to appeal to younger voters it's probably not the best idea to take away their toys. Yeah, I realize the ban passed as a rider to a foreign aid spending bill, but the Democrats should've made a bigger stink about it. Biden also could've vetoed it, too.
Bullshit (Score:1)
Trump doesn't have a problem with bringing them back so long as he gets the personal a profit from it. And the Republicans are just fine with that because they'll be able to control TikTok as a state apparatus.
Basically the people who passed the band weren't expecting Trump to either win the election or if he did they weren't expecting him to just brazingly sei
Furthermore, Trump is only thinking (Score:1)
About personal profit for him and his billionaires club led by Elona Musk! He couldn't care less about us the people! What a shame compared to the golden age we were living in just a month ago! He really doesn't mind TikTok spying on us the people as long as it pays him while respectable president Biden was doing everything in his power to protect us the people! Sadly, those days are over now and maybe forever since we might not have another election ever again like Trump told the Amish people telling them
Re: (Score:2)
True to form of fascists; when you need someone to blame, find the most convenient Jew.
What a country
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't have a problem with bringing them back so long as he gets the personal a profit from it. And the Republicans are just fine with that because they'll be able to control TikTok as a state apparatus.
I actually think they've broken Musk's record when it comes to how quicky a platform devolved into a right-wing cesspit. I don't use TikTok but my partner does, and he said it is absolutely flooded with MAGA garbage now. So yeah, that was obviously the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
the Democrats should've made a bigger stink about it
...but what if TikTok really is a security threat, then why shouldn't it be banned? There are lots of real, and significant concerns about it, including the ability of a U.S. adversary having direct access to the American people to flood them with propaganda (using AI tools to make it seem "real") for various causes and issues important to China? (See for example: https://www.rand.org/pubs/comm... [rand.org]). Generally the move to reform TikTok was bipartisan, and it seems there are some legitimate reasons to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
+1 thanks for the summary
Re: He's God emperor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We thought that George Washington had formed the basis of an enduring democracy, which he did. Our mistake is in assuming that the democracy would continue forever. That's our fault.
Thing is, Democracy can vote to undermine itself. America was never immune to that.
Re:Is Trump judicial or legislative? (Score:5, Interesting)
Checks and balances only work when people behave in good faith. High school civics class taught me that congress controls government funding and spending. If orange jesus wants to dissolve the EPA then congress has to vote on the matter.
The founding fathers probably never envisioned a situation where the majority party stops operating in good faith and allows checks and balances to fail.
The arguments are going to get really interesting when the 14th amendment goes before the courts. If the 14th amendment can be sidestepped, then so can the 2nd.
Re: (Score:3)
We'll find out during the mid-terms if Americans are okay with this new normal. You've seen it right here in the comments on Slashdot, some conservatives are quite satisfied because they're getting exactly what they think they want. Never mind that it might not produce the desired outcome and how it will really make them miserable when some Democrat president comes along and conducts their newfound authority in the same manner.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll find out during the mid-terms if Americans are okay with this new normal. You've seen it right here in the comments on Slashdot, some conservatives are quite satisfied because they're getting exactly what they think they want. Never mind that it might not produce the desired outcome and how it will really make them miserable when some Democrat president comes along and conducts their newfound authority in the same manner.
One of the biggest mistakes is continually mispronouncing "Traitorous Robber Barons" as "Conservatives".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The arguments are going to get really interesting when the 14th amendment goes before the courts. If the 14th amendment can be sidestepped, then so can the 2nd.
The 14th amendment codified birthright citizenship because the powers that be wanted to guarantee that freed slaves were given citizenship. It's a really bizarre thing because there were better ways to have phrased that. Then there's the excuse "or subject the jurisdiction thereof" which is a lame-ass way to sidestep it.
But we've already shot the 1st and 4th to hell anyway. Unfortunately, the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back might be the 2nd, at which point we might have a literal shooting war
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The founding fathers probably never envisioned a situation where the majority party stops operating in good faith and allows checks and balances to fail.
Actually, they did. That is why they warned us against forming political parties... and yet, here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
So previously, Trump used the commonly used executive tactic of ignoring a law's directives (either the direct legistative wording or in the form of a judicial order). Many presidents have done that, and it is at least arguably consitutional. But now, Trump has gone further and directly changed the meaning of a law instead of just ignoring the execution. By so doing, he is breaching separation of powers, although it's not clear if he's trying to assume legislative or judical powers.
Look, I'm no fan of Trump, but even I have to point out that the sell-or-shut-down-TikTok law has a provision that allows the president to pause the shutdown for 90 days. [forbes.com] Trump chose 75 days. Not sure why.
According to the article I linked, the pause can be used if ByteDance is in the process of selling TikTok to a US entity. Not sure whether that is happening either. The point is, as far as I can see, Trump appears to be within the law in the way he's handling TikTok at the moment. But stay tuned.
Re:Is Trump judicial or legislative? (Score:5, Interesting)
So previously, Trump used the commonly used executive tactic of ignoring a law's directives (either the direct legistative wording or in the form of a judicial order). Many presidents have done that, and it is at least arguably consitutional. But now, Trump has gone further and directly changed the meaning of a law instead of just ignoring the execution. By so doing, he is breaching separation of powers, although it's not clear if he's trying to assume legislative or judical powers.
Look, I'm no fan of Trump, but even I have to point out that the sell-or-shut-down-TikTok law has a provision that allows the president to pause the shutdown for 90 days. [forbes.com] Trump chose 75 days. Not sure why.
According to the article I linked, the pause can be used if ByteDance is in the process of selling TikTok to a US entity. Not sure whether that is happening either. The point is, as far as I can see, Trump appears to be within the law in the way he's handling TikTok at the moment. But stay tuned.
"The law empowers the president to pause the ban for 90 days if TikTok shows it’s in the process of separating from ByteDance." Trump didn't declare that he found TikTok to be in the processing of separating from ByteDance. Moreover, the law only allows a pause, but Trump went beyond the law and had the Attorney General directly give Apple permission in violation of the law.
Perhaps the most troubling thing is that Republicans (voters and leaders) are either explicitly agreeing with this power grab or at least tacitly supporting it. Trump is Trump. In a way, I don't blame him. It's in his DNA to be the way he is. The real problem is the people who are supporting the illegal power grabs. The country will recover from Trump in four years (absent a coup or assent from the Supreme Court), but the Trump supporters will remain, and that is the huge problem. Perhaps the hope is that these supporters are just sycophants that will disappear or cease to be Trump-like once there are no more coattails to ride, but since Trump has trailblazed the strongman path, there will likely be others that will recognize that path as a way to gain power and riches.
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, I don't blame him. It's in his DNA to be the way he is.
This reminds me of dealing with a dangerous animal, like a poisonous viper. If a person isn't careful and wary of the danger at all times, they are likely to get bit!
"dumbass, you got bit. But don't blame the viper, you knew what it was"
there will likely be others that will recognize that path as a way to gain power and riches.
There already are: King Musk, Pres. Jr. Barron, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Incoirrect. Trump is NOT controlling the government. Musk is. Trump merely handed control of the entire US government to Musk.
In other words, the US went from a republic democracy to a monarchy with King Musk at the helm, and Trump as his assistant.
And this is a real monarchy, not the faux- monarchies of say, Canada or the UK or many other countries where there's a King or Queen but their role is generally symbolic than actually ruling.
King Musk has more power than say, King Charles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truth. I was a bit surprised that King Musk allowed Trump to sit at his (Musk's, not Trump's) desk a few nights ago, but then again, maybe Musk is allowing Trump to present to the U.S. populace that Cheeto Benito is still somewhat in charge. But the body language that evening, to me, was definitely giving off Trump is the assistant vibes.
Indeed.
When have you ever seen Trump be so Subservient?
Oh, I know! When he left that closed-door meeting with Putin in his last Administration.
Hmmmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Incoirrect. Trump is NOT controlling the government. Musk is. Trump merely handed control of the entire US government to Musk.
FFS, can we stop accepting the obvious scapegoats? Every damn time there is any heat on trump, he deflects and loads of people slurp it up. "Nah, it's not trump's fault! Elon is actually running things!" Or, as a real example, trumps 2025-02-12 truth social post, "BIDEN INFLATION UP!" He's not subtle about it.
Also note, you may direct your ire at more than one person at the same time.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be too hard on yourself. You've never really had any ability to shape events - politics keeps people occupied in the same way as football.
Re: (Score:2)
On your other point, Elizabeth Willing Powel once asked
Re: (Score:3)
Helluva government you got there, Americans.
Folks up here in Canada, of course, now facing the President of the United States threatening to annex us, are going to have look elsewhere for trade, and leave the sewer your country has become to fall apart. I suppose the 40 pounds of fentanyl seized at the US-Canada border will slow your march into virus-and-ignorance laden decline.
What a country.
Re: (Score:2)
Our mistake is in assuming that the democracy would continue forever. That's our fault.
Go to hell.
Organized groups always win over unorganized groups. I have no idea why the government didn't defend itself against the groups that are currently tearing it down, but whatever. Government is the organized group for the masses. Blame the masses for being naive enough to think a Representative Democracy could work for them.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden Administration tried to ban this app, and the Trump Administration restored it. (See the First Amendment to the Consitution of the United States of America).
The First Amendment is irrelevant here. The government is not trying to stop people from speaking on social media. They're just insisting that a foreign entity cannot own that social media, because of national security concerns.
And BTW, the call to sell or shut down TikTok had bipartisan support. Including Trump's ... until he changed his mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're just insisting that a foreign entity cannot own that social media, because of national security concerns.
Which is a completely reasonable (albeit antithetical to the spirit of an open, global internet) position to take if a foreign entity is attempting to set up shop in your country. After over a third of the US population is using the service however, now you do have a free speech problem.
Granted, the SCOTUS didn't see it that way, so at least as far as our laws are concerned it's peachy keen to yank a soapbox right out from underneath millions of Americans, because it happened to be made in China. I'd say
Re: (Score:2)
They're just insisting that a foreign entity cannot own that social media, because of national security concerns.
Which is a completely reasonable (albeit antithetical to the spirit of an open, global internet) position to take if a foreign entity is attempting to set up shop in your country. After over a third of the US population is using the service however, now you do have a free speech problem.
I vaguely recall that you and I have had this discussion before.
Anyway, the popularity of the platform is not relevant to the free-speech issue, which in fact does not exist in the first place. If anything, the popularity of the platform magnifies the problem of national security.
Granted, the SCOTUS didn't see it that way, so at least as far as our laws are concerned it's peachy keen to yank a soapbox right out from underneath millions of Americans, because it happened to be made in China. I'd say that reflects more on how our country interprets the value of free speech in the modern era (where being deplatformed is something the founding fathers never envisioned), rather than the nebulous issue of national security.
SCOTUS, and the others in this drama, were not trying to ban soapboxes. They were just affirming that the owner of the soapbox is a legitimate national-security issue that is not "nebulous." Good ole' American know-how can build l
Re: (Score:2)
Good ole' American know-how can build lots of soapboxes to support free speech. We just don't need one Made in China.
You sure about that? TikTok's biggest US-based competitors are run by an advertising company, and by any definition I'd say that's pretty much what Meta is, too. So, we're totally okay with user data being hoovered up and sold to the highest bidder as long as it's being done by an American company. It's difficult to say you truly have free speech when you constantly have to look over your back to make sure you're not saying anything that might upset the sponsor. [getyarn.io]
Access to foreign social media platforms is
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that seems to be overlooked by both of you, Powercntrl and ClickOnThis, is that the service wasn't banned nor blocked at all; It was just the app, AFAICT (please correct me if I'm wrong). People can just go to the website, login, and read and post.
IMO, and so long as they don't extend it to take over the website or the traffic thereof, removes the 1A from the discussion. Anyone with the app can also use a browser on that same device.
The naming of specific entities in the bill, rather than defining
Re: (Score:2)
And BTW, the call to sell or shut down TikTok had bipartisan support. Including Trump's ... until he changed his mind.
The ring was kissed. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/16... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And BTW, the call to sell or shut down TikTok had bipartisan support. Including Trump's ... until he changed his mind.
Anyone know if the Chinese government has handed more money to any Trump-associated properties recently [businessinsider.com]?
The Grifter-In-Chief is SO back, baby!
Re: (Score:2)
And BTW, the call to sell or shut down TikTok had bipartisan support. Including Trump's ... until he changed his mind.
You mean "Until he was paid to change his mind."
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Short memory?
August 6th, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you don't understand the first amendment by literally telling me you don't understand the first amendment.
As it is written, deplatforming over 1/3 of the US population would seem to blatantly unconstitutional.
As it is interpreted, though, you can't even say "fuck" over the airwaves.
We kinda-sorta have a 1A. Some of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And you can provide proof this app is spyware? Let's see it.
I can provide proof you're a fucking dipshit [lifeinmotion.com]. We talked about TikTok spying on users here on Slashdot several times, because they got caught several times. In particular they got caught clipboard spying, then promised to stop it, and then got caught doing it again. You're ignorant because you don't pay attention. Your uninformed opinion is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been deplatformed from the front page of the NYT. They refuse to print my rant. Mah freedums!!11
Your analogy isn't accurate, but let me fix it for you:
You were previously posting your rants on a Chinese newspaper. The US government bans Chinese newspapers. The NYT refuses to print your rants (which is entirely within their rights to do so) and now you don't have a platform for your speech. See the problem now?
Re: (Score:2)
As it is written, deplatforming over 1/3 of the US population would seem to blatantly unconstitutional.
How were they deplatformed? AFAIK:
* New installs of and updates to the app were blocked in the US.
* Existing installs continue to work for as long as TikTok wants to support it.
* The website still works for all.
* The service is still accessible to all.
* No device with the app is unable to run a browser to access the same content.
I've got issues with the bill (how it was implemented and the ability for POTUS to alter the company list at any time), and there may be a slippery slope concern (might lead to a US
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the implementation of the ban played out the way it did was because Trump stepped in with an EO. Had that not happened, the entire US-based infrastructure of TikTok would've been forced to shut down.
Technically, yes, TikTok could've ignored the order and continued operating by telling Android users to just sideload the app and continuing to run servers outside of the USA, but usually when this sort of thing happens most companies just abandon the market they've been banned in (because it's
Billions of Dollars of corruption but but Tiktok.. (Score:1)
Billions upon Billions of Dollars of corruption and outright fraud unearthed but lefties are debating pros & cons of a shitty Chinese app. Tells you everything..
Either it's a security risk or it's not (Score:2)
SCOTUS ? (Score:2)
Didn't the Supreme court gave marching orders on thaat one ?
So everything SCOTUS says is just suggerstions ? To be totally dismissed ?
Ridiculous piles up fast in the USA at the moment.
To avoid people learning to bypass their stores (Score:2)