It seems like there’s a final word on TikTok. 12 - after the presidential election, when these rules might not matter anymore. But a deadline for a hard ban has now moved from Sunday to Nov. My colleagues reported that the Trump administration announced new restrictions that it said would, in practice, ban the TikTok app - along with WeChat, another app from a Chinese company - in the United States.Īnd the administration’s rules appeared to soon prohibit updates to and new downloads of the TikTok app in the United States. It was all much ado about not much.Įxcept now, in a plot twist of a very dull soap opera, the White House seems to be blowing up that arrangement. The risk of TikTok being potentially abused for Chinese data harvesting or propaganda wouldn’t be reduced much, if at all.
FRIENDLY FOR FACEBOOK COMES UP AS MAC NY NY SOFTWARE
This threat seemed, in hindsight, to be mostly empty or a negotiating tactic.ĭays ago, an arrangement was proposed in which Oracle, an American software company, agreed to keep watch over TikTok’s data and make relatively cosmetic changes rather than a wholesale Americanization of the app. The reality is probably a little bit of both.Īfter many months of this, the Trump administration gave TikTok an ultimatum weeks ago: Sell to an American company or essentially close down the app in the United States. There are reasons to be worried about TikTok, and reasons to believe that concerns about it are motivated not by national security but nationalism. Some American politicians and others worry that it could become a way for China’s government to suck up information on Americans or spread a China-friendly view of the world. The back story, again: This video app from a company in China has created a royal mess. ( Binyamin Appelbaum, a member of The New York Times editorial board, made a similar point in a new column.) Instead of urging power companies to burn less fossil fuel, tax the carbon emissions. It validates the power of the company, and absolves government of responsibility. You don’t have to quit driving to demand safer roads.Īnd second, it is an aberration in history for people to fight what they believe are unfair corporate practices with personal consumer action. Teachout’s book, called in part “Break ‘Em Up,” had two points about the prevalence of consumer protests of companies, whether they’re against big banks, pharmaceutical giants or Facebook.įirst, it’s unfair and counterproductive to ask people to give up an essential communications tool like Facebook to have any say on its impact on the world.
“You can snark at Kim after you call Chuck,” referring to Kardashian West and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. “The target really should be Congress now,” Teachout told me.
0 kommentar(er)
