Maybe a silly question, but has anyone used these in production? Or used libraries in production which are built on these structures?
Im imagining a meeting about some project design, and thinking about how it'd go if someone suggested using parentheses to represent nodes of a tree. I imagine it'd get written off quickly. Not because it wouldn't work, but because of the complexity and learning curve involved.
Do you know the name of the problem or strategy used for solving the problem? I'd be interested in looking it up!
I own DDIA but after a few chapters of how database work behind the scenes, I begin to fall asleep. I have trouble understanding how to apply the knowledge to my work but this seems like a useful thing with a more clear application.
Software engineer here with an android phone. I've never bothered to look into Apple TV because I assumed it'd only be available on Apple devices. Similarly, I saw this post and thought there may be a reason for me to get an iPhone now as I assumed this would be available on apple devices only.
> "there may be a reason for me to get an iPhone now as I assumed this would be available on apple devices only."
That's the objective. Green text and all. To force everyone to adopt one platform because of network effects and social stigma.
These platform plays by the god tier trillion dollar companies are insidious and should be given scrutiny by the DOJ / FTC.
A breakup of these platforms would make none of this matter. You could pick and choose services across devices. We might even see some competition for Android and iPhone if the DOJ would step in and break this up.
Big tech is too big. A breakup would oxygenate the entire tech sector. It would probably even make the MAGMA stock go up because the sum of parts are being given away for free just to get eyeballs.
Billions of dollars are being given away for free to scrape in network effect advantages. It's at a level where competition from new players is virtually impossible. They can tax anything that moves. Every transaction, every relationship, every quanta of information.
I'm only aware it doesn't need an Apple device because spouse does have an iPhone and was able to set it up on our Roku that way. I still assume that someone in the household does need an iPhone in order to get a subscription, although now I think about it probably that's not true.
What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?
Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.
There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives.
But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it.
Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.
The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US).
I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy.
> 'cos we're all equal, no?
No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.)
On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets.
If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
> If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
I do t use tiktok and have no skin in the game as an EU resident, but setting a precedent for this kind of behaviour to permit clthe government to simply block anything it wants is basically following in CCPs footsteps, that's certainly not a good thing in my eyes.
This is not a new precedent. The US government has placed foreign-ownership restrictions on media companies since before the public internet was a thing. The only difference here is that it's targeted at a specific company, but I'm not really up in arms about that, even though I think they definitely could have written the law without naming ByteDance or TikTok specifically.
Not just media companies, the government block a Japanese company from buying US Steel. Not out of antitrust concerns but due to the foreign ownership aspect.
I feel like takes like these are coming from a place of extreme naivete, or worse, nihilism. Either people don't understand why it's problematic that our most influential social media platform among basically everyone age 0-30 is fully controlled by the CCP, or people really think the CCP wouldn't use its ability to control any Chinese company to aggressively mold US public opinion in concert with their inevitable invasion of the democratic country Taiwan,
or... the nihilistic option:
People know China would engage in information warfare using TikTok in a situation like that, but they foolishly think the CCP is on even moral ground with free democracies so none of this matters, and we've gotta keep the funny musical memes flowing.
For all one's misgivings about the US -- and there are many valid ones! -- before deciding these governments are equal, talk to a Chinese political dissident, if you can find one, since they sometimes disappear.
After the invasion of Ukraine, the EU blocked a number of outlets for spreading pro-Russian disinformation (RT, Sputnik for example) so this would be nothing new.
IAPP isn't a bad source IMO but hard to evaluate their methods, but lets see.
> Level of understanding about data collection and use
Netherlands : Weak - 14%
USA : Weak - 24%
Not great, I could spend time finding more, but the summary is that the EU has regulations that require companies to limit the useage of consumers information and privacy. The EU is consumer privacy focused, wheras the US seems to be Enterprise & Organisation focused, also it's state level enforcements fracture enforcement even further.
Lets look at the US CCPA vs GDPR :
A crucial difference is that GDPR requires individuals to opt-in before businesses can collect data while there is no opt-in condition in CCPA.
That should say it all.
Edit : I forgot to add, outside of Sanctions the EU has no control to simply decide to ban a company when it feels like it.
You start off sounding like you're arguing against the idea that the EU exerts more control over media than the US, but then most of what you said seems to support the fact that they do so.
Protecting people is always the justification. “We aren’t restricting your freedom, we are protecting you.” That governments seek to “protect” people from words on a page is wild to me.
> regulations are for the companies. But they’re not banned.
So if they don’t follow the regulations they simply keep paying fines indefinitely? Until they run out of money? Until the company goes out of business? We aren’t banning those companies, instead we’ll attempt to bankrupt them if they stay in our markets; unless they do what we say. In other words, extortion?
Numerous examples of China-says-jump-everyone-says-how-high.
NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".
1bn customers = a lot of money. A company that will kiss the ring will do the right thing by its shareholders and a nasty thing against humanity. I am 200% sure that Apple has given the keys for all users/phones/servers in China to the gov/CCP and nobody complained.
If North Korea had 1bn potential customers, we would be seeing Kim very differently.
We are cattle. It's all a 1984-ish sham.
Historically China has been so large and 'diverse' (not to be confused with DEI) (like India and Russia). It's not "one chinese person is just like anyone else". There are multiple Republics/States/etc. It takes an emperor to keep together an empire. And that usually requires (plenty of) violence.
Communism is built to make people suffer, remove individuality and requires total obedience and personal reformation to be the 'good citizen'. You and me both are EU citizens. We are all different and we respect/accept each other. In China if you disagree, you disappear. They would very much like to do the same to the rest of the world. And one day they will, just not yet. I hope they implode before they do (like all empires).
> NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".
John Cena was probably the wrestler HenryBemis was referring to. Although he started learning Chinese a long time ago, not for the purpose of apologizing. A couple years ago he called Taiwan a country, then issued an apology.
Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer.
Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories
In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India.
The US is not a master piece of freedom. Want to market or own foreign shares? Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?
Yes, China is absolutely worse. But the US is not a good example.
I never claimed the US was perfect, just better. I think using it as an example is fine. No country is perfect by any metric; everything is a matter of comparison over who is better or worse on a particular thing.
> Want to market or own foreign shares?
ADRs work for that, no?
> Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?
I agree those things are bad, but they have nothing to do with market access, which is the topic at hand.
I have a London stock exchange trading account with Schwab. I think I opened it online. The only catch is that I can only deposit or withdraw funds via my US Schwab account.
Well if we aren't going to get the actual fruits of capitalism I'm for damn sure going to fight it tooth and nail at home. Shit sucks and I can't think of anyone I trust less than an American capitalist.
> The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US)
Is there any reason you’re skipping the past 40+ years of turmoil in the Middle East purely from the US trying to control oil fields? Because Iran would like a word with, and there’s a hell lot of other countries behind them waiting their turn
Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but the US obviously doesn't have any issue meddling in other country's economies or political systems. The US also obviously allows foreigners to business in the US without many restrictions. Is this the "free market" I keep hearing about? I don't know.
The OP was contrasting this with China, that does not allow foreigners access to their markets. As a regular American, quite honestly, I would like a bit of protectionism from the US, as I recently bought a house and had to compete with cash offers from Chinese banks. It's insane to me that we allow foreigners to buy property here, while our own citizens are being increasingly priced out of our own country.
Isn’t that how laissez faire capitalism works - the person with the higher bid gets the sale, not based on central planned rules of which country the current administration is beefing with that day?
I'm pretty sure Meta apps, at least Facebook, are banned in China still. Apple complies with the Chinese government and removes banned apps otherwise it can not operate there. I think even Tiktok itself is banned in China, there is a special version just for the Chinese market so their consumers can not see global content.
There is no such ban. Microsoft operates tons of services in China. Internet companies just need to host all Chinese in China using an approved provider. This is the exact same requirement extended to Tiktok, for ages US tiktok data is stored in Oracle cloud with full audit access by appointed American firms.
Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. They are not in the same business. Meta is in the social networking ___domain, which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security. The "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" gave them good reason to believe that online social networks were a driver of societal change too powerful not to control. And they control it very very tightly.
> Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. Meta is in the social networking ___domain
Microsoft operated its own popular social network in China, called MSN Messenger. Tens of millions Chinese users were on that platform for like a decade until the release of mobile based WeChat.
> which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security
It is a matter of national security, we all saw what happened on twitter shortly before the 6th Jan 2021 attack.
That is the exact reason why everyone agreed that TikTok must host all US data and its deployed recommendation algorithm code in the US with 3rd party audit access by an appointed US entity.
The only question here is why should Meta and Google be exempted from the exact same rules if they want to operate their services in China.
MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_China
They were defeated by the QQ app and shut down in 2014.
> MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law)
Microsoft retained a 50% ownership of MSN China, just check the link you cited. Microsoft also retained the full ownership of the MSN messenger software while MSN China was just in charge of its day to day operation in China.
Also interesting to see that millions of Tesla EVs are being sold in China, hundreds of millions other American cars were sold in the past, but when Chinese EVs try to crack the US market it sudden becomes a national security issue.
> Also interesting to see that millions of Tesla EVs are being sold in China, hundreds of millions other American cars were sold in the past, but when Chinese EVs try to crack the US market it sudden becomes a national security issue.
Why are you making it sound like China doesn't restrict Tesla for "national security"?
Tesla was asked to complete a comprehensive review to ensure its data compliance. Tesla did it and has been cleared for such data security issue, that is how Tesla sold 670k units in China in 2024.
Im pretty sure there is no ban per se. They just say: "either put your servers in our jurisdiction or gtfo of here", to which Meta and co. voluntarily decide to not enter the market. CCP still advertises as open to foreign companies though
Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.
Apple is quite a special case since iPhone ecosystem creates many jobs in China. If Apple managed to move jobs to India (or wherever cheap labor is), Chinese government will stop being nice to them.
And even then, right now in China, iCloud service is run by Guizhou cloud, not Apple.
Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?
You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.
I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.
This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.
Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs
India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020
Every state to a different degree subsidizes its automobile industry.
Living in Australia now with access to Chinese EV's is eyeopening. It's great for the consumer. To the extent you accept EV's as a solution for reducing GHG's, the cheaper prices are making it easier to end our reliance on oil. Americans don't realize what they are missing out on.
Better than Tesla-quality vehicles for half the price.
Why exactly are they half the price? What are the externalities of Chinese EV manufacturing. They may be half the price, but I doubt they are half the cost.
Because if there are two subjects HN cannot resist pontificating on at length, it's social media/the modern web and Sinopolitics. Add a dash of red team/blue team sniping and it's the perfect storm.
I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.
And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.
> I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.
I can't speak for most Westerners, but I fully believe the United States to be an empire in decline already. Who will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an interesting question, I think China and India both could make a solid case for themselves.
> And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US
I don't really think about it in terms of "my interests." My ideal incoming superpower would be any superpower that's ready to deal with existential threats to our species like climate change, along with our global social ills like over-reliance on social media and the year over year alienation of everyone from everyone else. If that country comes with me needing to learn Mandarin then that's what has to happen.
I'm highly disillusioned with both the "West" as an idea (which can include any number of countries depending how racist the speaker is feeling at the moment). I still believe in Democracy, representative or otherwise, but I don't see any of those in your "West" anymore. I see a collection of ailing, aged empires full of greedy old men stealing as much money as they can so they and their families can coast out the collapse they have engineered. I contrast this with China, which certainly has problems too, and the CCP gets up to some nonsense, but their ability to exude top-down control also makes them more able to actually solve problems instead of endlessly bickering about them. And with respect to the notions of individual liberty and freedom that I do want to see in the world, it's clear that the West is too focused on maintaining the rights of the individual to do what they so please, and not enough on maintaining the planet upon which they would do it. How free is anyone if we can't leave our homes due to smog or unlivable temperatures/weathers?
Not saying it's an overall improvement. I am saying that the U.S. is on it's way out, and China is the likely incoming global superpower. We can do precious little to change this if we even want to, and I'm not rushing for a fire extinguisher here.
> Who will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an interesting question, I think China and India both could make a solid case for themselves
With the exception of the USSR, every superpower’s decline in history has involved a burst of violence. China or India won’t take over if America collapses because America collapsing (versus slow fading over lifetimes) almost guarantees nuclear war resetting the table.
If anything, WW1 happened because there were too many empires rather than a lack of any dominant powers.
Unless you’re suggesting that what the world needs is a single dominant empire? Which would be an odd position to take because history has proven that monopolies are much much worse for abusing power.
Maybe if/when we colonise other planets we can think of the Earth as a single government with countries acting like states (kind of like the EU but with less sovereignty for each state). However that’s only going to happen if we work together and generally cooperation is viewed as counterproductive to empire building. So we come full circle back to my original point.
It's not very clear, but the US version is more freedom plus killing more people, and the Chinese version is more servitude plus killing fewer people.
I think people who have seen one up close claim to prefer the other (but thets meaningless) while people who have seen both start to lean toward servitude, unless they are highly religious.
Since we all live in democratic regimes, maybe, just maybe, the will of the people should matter here at least a little bit? Banning TikTok is a deeply unpopular idea, across all party lines. It's only popular among the anti-democratic elites, from Trump (who first got this ball rolling), to Biden, to European leaders playing their "high-level" games.
You're lumping "not sure" in with "oppose the ban". You could just as easily lump "not sure" with "support the ban" and conclude that not banning it is deeply unpopular.
If you're trying to argue that a majority favors banning it, then, obviously, all opinions other than "favor banning it" have to be lumped together as "don't favor banning it"
It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives this power to future administrations.
It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
More fair would have been a restriction based on some framework like...
+ Public forum or utility
+ Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population
= Majority Ownership of corporate division and management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held within country OR a security partnered country (the easiest criteria for that might be they have an obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).
That way it isn't specific about any given platform or company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.
EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a matter of national security. TikTok, and social networking in general, has been one for some time now. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor thanks to social networks.
US on the other hand now has its social media controlled by oligarchs, not much better maybe.
If that’s your position, then you would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?
I'd be mindful that having a NATO partner be able to spy is maybe better than having Huawei spy if you have to choose, but yes, I think it's a risk that EU countries should be aware of and probably are more aware of than with social networks.
That has nothing to with them being US companies. Or are there any jurisdictions where Bolt/(other local company) is allowed to freely operate but Uber is banned?
Those are just examples. Whatever the reason for each, sovereign jurisdictions don't allow free access to their resources/markets just out of spite. That includes Europe.
That’s only partially true though. I don’t think Uber itself is not allowed to operate anywhere. Rather it’s business model is illegal in some cities/areas. Usually you can still use Uber to hire actual taxis there.
However exact same rules apply to its European competitors like Bolt. Make it entirely unrelated to this situation.
They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.
Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.
The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.
> The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world.
This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US.
ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner.
I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.
That's false. The US law requires TikTok to be sold to a non-adversary. A US company could buy it, or some German or Spanish company, and either would fulfill the requirements to avoid a ban in the US.
> No other country could get away with demanding this.
TikTok is already banned in India. Brasil banned Twitter for a while until they caved to Brasil's demands.
India banned TikTok a few years ago. Brazil banned X until it agreed to take down posts in violation of Brazilian law. The European Union fines US-based tech companies frequently.
"Entitlement" in the context of nations is irrelevant. Nations exercise power in accordance with their interests.
> The world is more than just China and the United States.
But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.
> You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.
I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim.
"As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."
True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though.
And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).
What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).
They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any).
> .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited.
So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China.
There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited.
Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.
Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..).
I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.
Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like).
Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China.
As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .
All media has propaganda. But if you objectively look at what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and then look at RT's coverage of the war, you must be pretty brainwashed to trust RT any more than American media.
There are plenty of corruption and issues in EU, some of which RT may have covered legitimately, but at least we're not intentionally massacring civilians and sending our poor and minorities to die as cannon fodder in an useless invasion. There's a reason why all European neighbours of Russia have or want to join NATO, and that is its imperialistic and aggressive policies.
You should come visit us in Finland or maybe our neighbour Estonia and really see what ordinary people have to say about Russia. Real people, who actually live next to them.
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.
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.
There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok appears to have just preemptively shut down the app before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.
Even without following the letter of the law it's entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150 million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet.
Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one claiming that they were just "following the law", that's what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok was making a political point by shutting down, then you agree with the person you're replying to.
Such compromises happen between companies as well when a particular app is popular. Facebook and Uber accessing private java apis which meant Google couldn't change the internals as these apps are popular.
I believe Tiktok shut down the app in India in the same way without being "obligated to" either before the order came into effect, albeit without the dramatic messaging.
(The latter part is probably because Tiktok's banning was not particulaly divisive within the population as it is in the US.)
I don't know exact figures, but when Tiktok was banned, Instagram was really popular - due to being pushed by Facebook, which was really really popular in India by then. None of my friends were on Tiktok, but all where there on Instagram. The reels thing was not popular but Facebook linked the account automatically and you just keep adding Facebook friends there as well.
Tiktok had a better algorithm (to get hooked) but Instagram eventually caught up (with algo)..
The dramatic messaging was entirely the point. India probably did not have an easily exploitable target for such a message, so there was no point in trying that there.
Oracle did shut them down last night, if Google and Apple have to drop their apps on the apps store, Oracle and other providers have to drop them too. Btw, the app won't function even if parts of the infra is down. Btw, business is risk averse, they don't want to give any excuses for government to fine them. Bytedance should definitely shutdown everything and blocked all US users unless they have explicit, written and legally bidding instructions from the Justice Department. Only an executive order is enough. They asked Biden to give that, but Biden just smirked
I’m not sure this is correct. I see where you’re coming from, but there was a clear date that the law was going to be enacted by, and tiktok simply followed that date. Pretty much everybody expected tiktok to be required to shut down. The law is clear that there are penalties for tiktok continuing to operate past that date, so it’s not really surprising.
They were telling users who to blame and who to thank because in this specific case, the blame and the thank are pretty clear. The Biden administration approved the ban, and the Trump administration reversed it. Blaming one and thanking the other is also hardly surprising.
Well, "the law" is a shorthand for "how the police behave" and there is a certain amount of realpolitik here. The basic argument here would be that the US Congress made a scary growling sound and TikTok folded immediately because the Congress is terrifying. But then Trump made more of a friendly sound and so they think they can operate a bit longer with some level of safety.
There is no question that TikTok is a politically sensitive app and the US/China are very nearly in the funnel to a major war so a lot of the usual niceties are questionable. Previously the US has attempted something that looked a lot like a black-bag kidnapping of a Chinese industrialist [0]. I'd imagine that the TikTok people are acutely sensitive towards how the law is actually going to be interpreted and enforced in practice.
This is basically the same tactic to the SOPA/PIPA protests [1]. I don't know why people are bending over backwards to pretend it was something other than a political stunt. Also, Trump's rhetoric has remained unchanged since well before this - a 90 day extension. They wanted to flex their muscle to show the US political establishment how many US users there were and how much sway they had to give them more leverage in their negotiations. That's about it.
Jan 17: Biden administration says it will leave TikTok ban enforcement for Trump [1]
Early Jan 18: Trump says he will 'most likely' give TikTok a 90-day extension to avoid a ban [2]
Late Jan 18: TikTok makes app unavailable for U.S. users ahead of ban [3]
Midday Jan 19: TikTok begins restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments [4]
They already knew what was going to happen. They also changed the message shortly after disabling it from "We're working to restore service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned." to "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Stay tuned!" [5]
If your cloud provider tells you they are shutting you down on date X, you want to fight as hard as you can until X and then shutdown gracefully to have a chance to explain to your users why your system is going down. If you wait until you get shutdown, you have no way of pushing a graceful shutdown anymore.
Oracle has no interest in running afoul of the US government at all. Their internal culture in many ways views them like that of a quasi-government institute. So in thus case they probably are feeling responsible to actually be the ones enforcing the law.
I imagine shutting down ByteDance is not like flipping a switch. They have a mountain of infrastructure and “shutting down” could mean nuking the data or otherwise getting it out of their cloud entirely. If it has to be done by a certain date you’d need to start nuking things well in advance to be absolutely certain you’re in compliance by the deadline. I’m surprised the shutdown happened as late as it did if this wasn’t a completely staged crisis.
That’s a trivial problem to solve though. Just push an update to the app that shows the „we were banned“ message if a specific API endpoint isn’t reachable anymore (and general internet connectivity is still there of course). Then you can operate as normal until your servers are forcefully shut down.
That's not true, distributors of the app are fined. Meaning, very specifically, app stores.
From (2)(a)(1):
> (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
>
> (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
Possession of and providing non-distribution ( / maintenance / update) services to a "Foreign Adversary Controlled Application" are not in any way a part of the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act". Operative services are specifically and intentionally excluded from the list, to ease the burden of enforcement.
I don’t use TikTok but the “down” page mentioned you can still login to download data. What’s the cost and scope of providing that feature without US cloud providers?
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.
Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or are you simply assuming there have been no such private discussions?
Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for these companies to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.
There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.
That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble. If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as they believe it would have been executed by the incoming Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.
That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue operating, but it could mean the parties involved wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We just don't know until and unless it goes to court.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue? Obviously you understand that that if you create a contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future, then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.
If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable Trump to break the contract if he so chose without consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no reason that would imperil the companies having a rock solid defense against enforcement penalties in the interim period.
Such a contract - where someone promises to use their (future) presidential powers in exchange for some consideration from the other party - would be illegal and unenforceable, because someone paying the president to exercise executive powers to their benefit is literally just bribery.
In what universe does this apply to the president? If the president promises a company to do X, it’s not a contract. I’m not even sure the president is allowed to make a contract with a private entity to give them a political favor.
There is no law or precedent to prohibit someone from engaging in contracts because of holding public office. In fact there is even an ongoing movement to try to get more politicians to do exactly this so that campaign promises would be more likely to be executed. Again qualified immunity would probably make these contracts impossible to enforce against a politician, but in this case the agreement would work as a defense if for some reason Oracle et al faced legal threats or fines for continuing to work with TikTok.
Trump => Agrees to avoid interim enforcement against companies facilitating the operation of TikTok + legally clarify matters when he gets into office.
Companies => Agree to temporarily facilitate the operation of TikTok until matters are further clarified.
I don't see anything particularly controversial here.
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.
Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case
Most famously Richard Nixon received a pardon by Ford immediately after his resignation but before any prosecution. Also, it’s any federal law, the exception is impeachment and nothing else.
So, pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution. They may not pardon someone for something that hasn’t happened, but as long as there in office when the crime is committed that’s more a technical issue.
After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[7][8]
> pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution
Is this really the case? Has this specific situation ever been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Burdick v. U.S. doesn't address "pre-pardons" or blanket pardons. Nixon was never prosecuted or tried.
The court ruled they could reject a pardon given before prosecution thus avoiding the need to testify about someone else. It would be a moot point if the pardon was invalid.
Presidents can pardon classes of people. Carter pardoned all people guilty of evading the draft during the Vietnam War. So Trump could pardon everyone involved in certain companies or involved in a specific act.
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”.
Trump issued a statement saying that he would issue an executive order after he became president that retroactively would dismiss any fines which satisfied both TikTok and the app hosting providers (Apple, Google).
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?
He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that) and good fucking luck ever getting the required votes to remove him from office. He can do whatever he wants with impunity.
SCOTUS pointed out that they weren't crimes committed by Trump. We then saw the political prosecutions of Trump backfire spectacularly in a way that strongly suggests that the balance of the US population agreed with the SCOTUS call that the prosecutors didn't have a case that Trump had to answer for.
There’s a bit of a “live by the sword, die by the sword” situation going on here.
Presidents can’t just ignore a law categorically (although they regularly do, e.g. DACA, DOMA, etc.) On the other hand, presidents can certainly decide not to prosecute a particular entity under a particular law. That’s the heart of the executive power versus the legislative power.
Here, Congress wrote an extremely specific law that applies basically to one company. Which isn’t impermissible. But it’s also not clear to me that Congress can insist on immediate enforcement of that law without crossing effectively usurping the executive power and directing the President to prosecute a specific company at a specific time.
Technically, the President + Executive can do whatever they want, including prosecute parts the Executive!), until the President is either impeached or replaced by election or incapacitation.
Technically yes. But what I mean is that, even in terms of the spirit of the law, the situation is a bit murky, because Congress effectively wrote a law that requires the executive to prosecute a specific company on a specific deadline.
That's actually one of the reasons the president has a veto. If the president doesn't want the law to pass, then there isn't much point in passing it unless Congress makes a show of force with the 2/3rds majority, which is also the majority needed to remove him from office.
Similarly, one of the reasons the president has a pardon power is because he doesn't have to enforce those federal offenses. E.g. imagine that a president without pardon power instead offers "plea deals"/settlements for a $1 fine or concocts vacuously lenient house arrest enforcement.
The original constitution basically accepts that there is very little you can make a president do, and it instead formalizes what would otherwise be a gray area (it does have plenty about what he can't do). Some of this has changed over time especially as the judicial branch has granted itself more power.
The entire system is built on checks and balances. For instance even a simple district attorney can choose to effectively nullify laws within his jurisdiction by not prosecuting violations - something that has regularly happened in contemporary times. Even the final check - the lone juror - can also nullify laws by similarly choosing to acquit alleged violations regardless of the evidence.
You could obviously create a far more functional system but it would probably be far less stable. The reason you have all these checks and balances, from top to bottom, is that the Founding Fathers were obsessed about the risks imposed by both a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the minority. And non-enforcement of something effectively comes down just a continuation of the status quo, making it difficult for any group to [openly at least] impose their will on others.
You're not wrong but the only real recourse for an executive that fails to uphold the laws created by Congress is an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.
Theoretically that's true but in practice there is ample precedent for Presidents refusing to enforce specific laws. In one instance (DACA) the Supreme Court ordered a President to continue a previous President's official policy of not enforcing certain laws against certain people!
Don’t confuse the oath of office for a binding agreement. The president is supposed to uphold the law, but they are only held accountable by impeachment.
“Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.”
It obviously irrelevant whether the law was bipartisan or not, and the Supreme Court never "affirmed" the law--it denied a preliminary injunction.
As to upholding laws passed by Congress--just two days ago, Biden did his last round of student debt forgiveness, bringing the total up to $188 billion.
I’m not trying to “both sides” this. I’m just saying that the standard you’ve articulated for how promptly the president needs to act on a law like this isn't the standard we apply in practice. The government tries to reach deals like this in lieu of enforcement actions all the time.
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.
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
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.
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.
>and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.
And they were forced to use those hosting providers (oracle) by the US.
It's not like investing loads to bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve them well either. They'd still lose the US business relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning things around like they might've. Why bother?
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.
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
Plus has there ever been a US president that came back after a term away? Usually when a "new" president comes in you figure they'll be running again next time.
Grover Cleveland also had two non-consecutive terms, and the twenty second amendment is pretty clear in it's language that you can only be elected to the office of President twice.
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
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.
In 2012 a coordinated action by 100,000 sites (including major platforms like Reddit, Wikipedia and Google) all went dark for 24 hours to protest SOPA, which was successful in killing the bill. Some only changed the color scheme and added a message but others shut down.
Sorry what?! I was in Australia and even from here it was obvious it was happening. Maybe go back refresh your mind on old HN posts. Sorry not meaning to be rude but the digital protests of the day were very significant. Lots of media coverage and site blackouts and banners and average punters waking up to the interruption. Stacks was going on. You can even watch Internets Own Boy doco where it’s covered.
As for your claim they had no effect, that's not what the sources from the time say—on the day of the protests 13 senators announced their opposition, including 5 former co-sponsors:
When you lose five co-sponsors in one day and that day happens to coincide with the internet shutting down, I don't find it very credible to try to claim that there was internal dissent all along.
Uber has used this tactic many times in their early days. It mostly worked because citizens got used to cheap rides and got mad at their government for taking it away.
> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
That wasn’t a political statement. Per your link, it was a belief that that could not continue the credit card payments while staying in compliance with the law.
The timing and phrasing make it clear that this was planned and negotiated in advance, and the shutdown was just for show in order to be able to post a memo about how "President Trump" saved it. If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours between midnight and noon on Sunday morning.
The point of the stunt was to persuade large numbers of younger folks that the Ds are the bad guys and Trump in particular is the hero. And it'll work as designed.
My partner uses TikTok and was greeted with a message today saying that DJT saved the app. That isn't possible because he isn't president yet. It's all very embarrassing.
I'd pay good money for a newspaper that would go out of its way to avoid mentioning Trump, Musk, and all these other highly exasperating people, unless it's completely unavoidable (e.g. "Trump declares war on California").
Also the CEO of TikTok is going to sit directly behind Trump at the inauguration. It's not even subtle and half the point is that it isn't subtle - bend the knee to Trump and you'll be taken care of, is the message. We operate just like Russia at this point.
Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
We’ve also started seeing TT ads on Reels, and a brand new blue-checked Facebook account appeared on TT yesterday and rapidly gained 100Ks of followers.
> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
Well, that makes this interesting. The bill also allowed a 90-day extension if they found a buyer and were in the process of finalizing it.
This may put this cringe ByteDance stunt and Meta/Zuck's pandering to Trump into more perspective. The Hero coming to save the day with a magical 90-day extension. As long as everyone plays their scripted part. On the other hand, it's probably just a funny timed coincidence that will pass in 3 months
[added] The president would have to approve any sale of apps caught in this law
> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
Wait, if this is truly what this outcome was about, this seems.. huge? Can you share more information about that?
There isn’t enough time for the current President to enforce this. A convincing pledge from the incoming guy that he’ll allow them to continue operating is all it would take. How you get a convincing pledge out of this guy, I have no idea, but apparently they believe it.
He's also telling them to buy a shitcoin. It's all very well believing he magically saved TikTok, but I think there's a lot that will be real hard to swallow. The cycles between FA and FO are getting really, really quick…
TikTok operated in a way that did not need to happen. Biden's administration was explicit in that the enforcement of the ban were to be performed by the Trump administration. Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday. TikTok are now operating based on this information.
Who is currently in charge of the oval office is an irrelevant quality.
Note that the ban was not really on TikTok, but the ownership. TikTok could be owned by many other parties in the world. It just can't be ByteDance or parent/subsidiary which has ties to China.
> Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday
How does that work? If congress passed a law banning TikTok how can the president just override it for 3 months? What's to stop him from overriding it for the next 4 years?
I read the bill and didn't see it stated anywhere. I'd genuinely appreciate a link or even a copy/paste with the relevant section that I could look up on google.
But that is essentially what is happening. There is long-standing convention for the president elect to not step on the sitting president's toes prior to inauguration, but Trump has been bucking that convention this time around. This is just an impossible to ignore example.
He's bragged several times that he saved TikTok. Trump also said the Israeli peace deal wouldn't have happened with him, which is an admission of breaking the law that states you cannot act as president without being president.
But Trump already knows he is above the law, so none of this matters.
Doesn't the law explicitly require TikTok to have a convincing deal in place, and to be able to show proof of that to Congress, before such an extension can be granted?
At 17:05 in this video (and I believe discussed once elsewhere but I can't find it/don't want to rewatch it): https://youtu.be/pZkoV5UnPvw
Yeah... there's no such provision. The only mentions of the president in that bill are:
1. In the definition of a "covered company". The bill itself already saus that TikTok is covered; this is only a provision to add other companies to the list.
2. In determining what qualifies as "divestiture" to have the ban lifted. That's described as happening when -
> the President determines, through an interagency process...
"TikTok wrote me a big check and said nice things about me" isn't an interagency process.
Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.* He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon. He can't grant pardons, he can't lift law enforcement decisions, and he can't write executive orders. The promise of an executive order, even if such an order would be lawful tomorrow (which I can't understand how it would be), is not a legal document that can make something legal today.
Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn to read:
(a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act.
(c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—
(1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination.
^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from.
===
> Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.
Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition power.
Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that something is part of the constitution based on absolutely nothing. Bro … after what Biden and Kahmahlah did, there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden and Kahmahlah did.
> Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear
> In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."
If a president can decree amendments, the Constitution means nothing. If you can break the constitution to change it, as Biden attempted, then how do you have a constitution?
paste your article into chatgpt and tell it your thoughts. I've very curious if you can convince it you have a valid point. More so, you may come out more educated and everyone wins
> “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
Pointing out that Biden, in contradiction the the US constitution, tried to alter the US constitutions. I don't make the facts, they are what they are.
I’m not sure what to say other than that you have a bizarre interpretation of the article. I mean in no way, shape or form is Biden trying to abolish the US Constitution.
If the ERA was dully ratified, then it would not need Biden to decree it law. If Biden can decree an amendment to the constitution as law, then the constitution has no meaning.
> “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
If you mean because they used the term "President Trump", that honorific is for life. See, for instance, the recent passing of President Carter for a million examples. If you mean because he couldn't have executed legal actions yet - he could have offered private and legally binding statements to all the major players - Oracle, Apple, and Google.
I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for the heads of the various companies involved to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.
Calling it a political favor is quite silly. He stated he was likely overturn it for months now, but the public indirect phrasing was probably not sufficient for the involved actors to feel was sufficient to act on, a private statement of definitive intent would be.
Oh maybe the very clear messaging in the app and by the inbound administration, who is heavily supported by tech elites.
The same people who have been very open about their feelings towards opposition and who and what they support. No one will come out and claim this was the case, but its not like they are trying to hide it either.
Isn't it enough to see, smell, you have to touch and eat it repeatedly so you can conclude: yes, this is shit. You are now expert in shit eating and the professional opinion is that this is really shit, no mistake is made here!?
If that’s the case this was totally bungled, the app was down for less than 12 hours, overnight during a weekend. If they wanted maximum effect Trump wouldn’t have tweeted until 5pm eastern to give people a chance to come to terms with the shutdown actually happening.
The Tik Tok in-app notes for "shutting down" and "we're back" both referenced Trump by name. I doubt they would do that without his explicit consent.
Trump beamed his name and heroics directly into the eyeballs of 50m people before he even took office. That wouldn't have happened without the brief blip going dark.
Odds are good he said he'd pardon them (which is a whole different story) but ensured they'd go dark for a few hours, either by withholding his guarantee or by directly coordinating it with them.
This is Trump. It's always about him. If we haven't learned that we haven't learned anything.
> The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.
Seems like the goal pivoted recently - the goal is to keep TikTok Chinese and have them supporting the corrupt regime taking over the US, similar to other foreign adversaries have in the past
> ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.
shortly after Trump tried to force bytedance to sell its shares during his first term, the Chinese government passed laws to include the recommendation systems used in social media into the export control list. bytedance thus won't be able to sell tiktok without approval from the chinese government.
Does anyone have a citation for this? Probably higher quality if it's in Chinese even if I have to machine translate it. Because that would be a clear pointer of suspicion.
Agree, and the velocity is amazing, it's really hard to keep up with the shenanigans. In my opinion, it will have a negative impact on the economy, education, birth rates etc.
Government should stay out of the way, and I don't want to hear about it every ten seconds, on the other hand, I don't want to have to read the news every five minutes to audit what they're doing.
I think it's obvious that US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum. They were never prepared for an actual ban and the resulting fallout. Now that it's obvious they won't divest (which should have been obvious the entire time), they flipped
> US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum
I worked on the bill. Everyone assumed it would hit the ban, get an extension, and then either remain banned or get sold to Elon, Ellison or a Brexiteer.
"It's clear that more time is needed to find an American buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans of so many influencers who have built up a good network of followers" [1]
The deal was divest or ban, not look for "more time to find a buyer". My point is they were never prepared for an actual ban.
I think the bigger point is there are a lot of young people making really decent money on TikTok. (I know a few of them.) The result is a lot of push back from a lot of people who are effectively loosing their jobs. This is probably more clear to politicians now than it was a year ago, since the actual “threat” of the situation set in for more people.
As popular as the platform is with the younger demographic and the voting preferences of said younger demographic it's political malpractice for democrats to not try to at least salvage some face in this whole ordeal, whether you think the blame is misplaced or not.
Here we have a group of people that have given up on their duties re: checks and balances because following orders is easier. What a surprise that they're spineless in other ways too.
> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?
There's too much effort and uncertainty involved in actually creating a problem and then actually fixing it.
It's much easier and more reliable to create the perception of a problem by promulgating lots of FUD, then engage in performative theatrics to nullify the FUD and proclaim the problem fixed.
What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?
If you create an issue, and solve an issue, indifferent of the issue being real, you'll be credited with solving the issue. It's ridiculous at this scale
The phrase is not a defense of some hyper relative worldview. It’s commentary that the perception of the many facts, which of those are highlighted, which are ignored, which biases shine through and which narrative wins, etc., at the end of the day, is the reality you must deal with. Reality is downstream of facts.
Interesting... are you able to expand on this? My understanding is that the $TRUMP coin runs on Solana, which similar to Bitcoin runs on a public ledger and therefore offers limited anonymization (basically none).
It doesn't matter if it's anonymous. What's important is buying $TRUMP is a tax-free method with plausible deniability to increase Donald Trump's net worth.
Anyone is free to make an "investment," there is no disclosure requirement, and an accusation of bribery (even if one could be made legally against a sitting president, which SCOTUS tells us it cannot) would require a provable quid-pro-quo.
trading crypto isnt tax free if it isnt in tax deferred or tax exempt entity
and when transferred in a way that would otherwise require a disclosure to a politician or campaign, the crypto asset and transaction would also require a disclosure
if there are other benefits that the crypto world is superior at, then thanks for describing a use case and value proposition relevant on a geopolitical scale to the largest nations on the planet. a lot of people here cant imagine any because they arent the target audience
I don't think the idea is to buy crypto locally, and then donate the crypto to Trump. The purchase is the donation. You just wake up one day and decide to purchase some shitcoin. The seller happens to be Trump. He walks away with your USD, and you can keep what you bought or just throw it away.
> I mean, isn't this the same as donating to Trump?
Not in a legal sense. In the US, donations to politicians and campaigns are tightly regulated. Foreign entities aren't allowed to donate. Donations have to be reported, are subject to limitations, etc.
In crypto, none of that applies. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can invest essentially unlimited funds into a memecoin. It's not technically a donation because you're buying something, and it's not technically going to Trump, because you're buying from some pseudonymous entity on the blockchain. Nevertheless, the money goes to Trump. It's an ideal venue for laundering bribes.
Good point, though lobbying groups are often endorsing and donating to candidates and are backed by sentiment in other regimes like AIPAC. I guess $TRUMP is just creating another backdoor around foreign donation regulations.
In the US, lobbyists representing foreign interests must register as such. Failure to register is a crime: that's what Michael Flynn was convicted of, before Trump pardoned him.
In contrast, any foreign party can purchase $TRUMP.
> trading crypto isnt tax free if it isnt in tax deferred or tax exempt entity
Sure, good luck enforcing that. Although crypto isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous. In any case, you aren't subject to the same taxes as a traditional gift about $20000 and you aren't subject to the same regulation as campaign contributions.
> and when transferred in a way that would otherwise require a disclosure to a politician or campaign, the crypto asset and transaction would also require a disclosure
That's the beauty of the grift. "Investing in $TRUMP" isn't a transfer to a politician or a campaign: it's a purchase of a memecoin on a public blockchain. It's a way to give money to Trump without meeting the legal definition of "giving money to Trump."
> if there are other benefits that the crypto world is superior at, then thanks for describing a use case and value proposition relevant on a geopolitical scale to the largest nations on the planet. a lot of people here cant imagine any because they arent the target audience
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I think I just explained a pretty use case for crypto as a means to buy political favor. Other benefits of crypto include: (a) purchasing illegal goods, (b) defrauding naive consumers.
the hotels were functioning that way through the entire administration last time
and the $DJT stock is already doing this as well
What you’re pointing out is just not a unique aspect of crypto or that interesting in the Trump portfolio of “things vulnerable to being used as kickbacks in a currently legal way”
> the hotels were functioning that way through the entire administration last time
Sure, but it's a matter of scale. It's difficult to rent a billion dollars worth of hotel rooms.
> and the $DJT stock is already doing this as well
Yep, that's another scam.
> What you’re pointing out is just not a unique aspect of crypto
Yes and no. Crypto offers a uniquely unregulated and perhaps unregulatable means for malfeasance. NASDAQ tickers are tame in comparison.
Fwiw, the moral of the story is not "all crypto is evil" but rather "crypto should be regulated like any other instrument in order to prevent fraud" and perhaps as a corollary "sitting presidents shouldn't be issuing their own meme coin."
A foundation? Kamala got a $20 million "book deal". Obama took the Clinton method to ridiculous extremes getting paid $400k for 30 minute chats of minimal content, repeatedly.
Sure they are, but they should explain why they changed their minds. In the case of meme coins like $TRUMP, it's hard to defend crypto as an investment or as a currency, which leaves the obvious reason: it's a scam.
In the case of Trump, I'm sure he was all for crypto as soon as he realized that he personally could make money from it. Same goes for his NFT grift.
not sure why people still try to understand Trump after all these years him being a public figure. he does absolutely NOTHING and EVER which does not help his bottom line and benefit him personally. he’ll fucking steal money from a children’s charity which is about as low as humans go - the lowest scum of the earth to make a penny. hence him “changing his mind” (he was a democrat and was sucking clinton’s dicks for decades) has nothing to do with me and you changing our minds based on something we learned - for him there is a single thought - how can I profit from it.
According to the people I work with, all they care about is kids in cages. They value “tough talk” on immigration above anything else. Being influenced by Russia or China don’t even register.
> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
A number of internet services (e.g. Wikipedia) shut down temporarily on Jan 18, 2012 as a political statement against SOPA.
Heh; I thought you were talking about trump the first few times I read this.
He appointed a bunch of corrupt Supreme Court judges, and they upheld an obviously unconstitutional law (bill of attainment). Now, on his first day in office, he gets to be a hero by unilaterally deciding not to enforce the law.
So, moving forward, (1) we should expect increasingly unjust and draconian laws, and (2) as long as you do what Trump asks, you can break whatever federal laws you want.
(Zukerberg, Bezos and Trump have already gotten in line for this.)
> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly
I wish people would understand that Trump has no ideology. Over a span of decades, Trump has been critical of liberals and conservatives, often at the same time. He's praised conservatives and liberals, often at the same time. His political positions are aligned with whatever benefits him the most.
He doesn't care about making life better for the middle class. He doesn't care if immigration restrictions are relaxed or tightened. He doesn't care about whether or not transgender people have access to health care or can or can't serve in the military. He only cares what positions on those issues will benefit him and his friends at any given time. And if tomorrow holding the opposite position will benefit him more, he'll switch, just like that, and somehow convince his base that's what they believe too.
Trump is the one who was championing the idea of a TikTok divestiture or ban, back when he was president the first time. He's only changed his mind on that because opposing the ban is better for him now.
Already do and users are noticing. Ads have been introduce in a really obnixious facebook/instagram style and contebt moderation is more facebook/instagrem esq as well. It would surprise no one on the platform if meta has already aquired it, and it just needs to be announced.
100% it's what happened. And the craziest part is that it worked because Biden went along with it. It's easy enough to argue Trump played hardball to negotiate for any divestiture that may occur; because that was his goal all along. The narrative/pundits can spin this easily in his favour.
Either because they gave in to the ploy, or because they were unable to close a TikTok deal, the Democrats look incompetent here. And Trump gains favour in the younger demo (that he's already pretty strong in) AND with SMB because he gave TikTok more time.
oh - and his true audience all along: an American oligarch is about to get at least half of TikTok for a steal.
Anyone doing graft, corruption or just questionable wealth accumulation in the millions or single billions is going to look like small ball for at least the next four years.
Yeah it's just decent strategy on their part (I hate to say). Even if they don't profit directly off of the TikTok deal they look like absolute bosses for being able to "give" Americans what they wanted all along.
No. It's a big political statement to include political messaging and plead to political figures when you shut down. Then to praise those political figures afterwards is additional political messaging.
No, many users are sharing the theory that the downtime was to allow meta or google to take over the backend. Content delivery is different on the app now. For example, ads being served during videos not between videos.
There was no deadline, the app stores didn’t need to remove it.
The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump administration to review, they had no reason to shut it down. It’s purely to force Trumps hand a bit.
> As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign
Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw-
ful for companies in the United States to provide services to
distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform
TikTok
That is simply a topical remark within the judgement denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would have been required to be taken immediately offline, as the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet moved on the matter.
“It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them.”
Please do some research next time before accusing people of spreading lies.
Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not create liability, unless given an explicit assurance.
I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They still had liability.
Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing court cases all the way till the last minute even though they’ll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable to take a risk averse approach for a company.
The Biden administration said it wasn't going to initiate enforcement proceedings in the last 24 hours of their administration.
It did not, nor did it have the authority to, waive the apps stores requirement under the law to do that. To remove the potential for future enforcement actions (up to 5 years in the future) punishing them for failing to comply with the law. Neither will Trump even once he is president unless and until amongst other things ByteDance signs legally binding documents that they will divest from TikTok within 90 days.
People need to understand that politicians (dare I say everywhere?..) are just business man with dressing. They simply put up a show for people to win the votes and once they get elected, do whatever they can to make an extra buck. Trump, a convicted felon is certainly no different..
Was it? Apart from Elon’s dependence on China market for Tesla sales, I didn’t think so. Trump has been talking a lot about going hard against adversaries.
The TikTok ban is something he supported. And it’s more popular on the right than left.
FWIW, it was at least year in the making, but I will admit that the execution did add a proper show vibe.. as would be expected from a reality show star.
How much of Americans driving to work is because they choose too though? Amazon's 5 day RTO policy is a good example. How many of the people now going to an office 5 days a week would've done so without the mandate? I see the traffic every day, and saw the same area before the mandate, so I can tell you with confidence that there's many more cars on the road as a result of this commute. this all funnels back to the corporate decision to mandate 5 days in office.
Exactly. IMO, any politician who's serious about saving the environment or reducing the number of cars should be proposing bills to heavily tax employers for every unnecessary commute they require of their employees (maybe $100-$500 per employee per unnecessary day required in the office).
The only mortgages that don't require cashflow are the paid off mortgages. Even if someone has a year of savings, or two years, or three, after that amount is drained, they need cash flow again. So how does one buy a house without being dependent on cash flow?
Well, you need cashflow on a house in general. Even with a paid-off mortgage, I'm easily $10K/year and probably closer to $20K if I'm not pushing various stuff off.
2025 standard deduction is $30k for MFJ. Ain’t many people passing that mark these days in itemized deductions so the mortgage interest deduction is moot.
Well the most obvious approach would be to pay cash.
The more fiscally conservative option is to only borrow money if you have capital which is earning income at a higher rate than the mortgage. This probably necessitates having more capital than the house costs.
The problem with that is that unless you have an extremely well paying job or rich parents, you have to outsave inflation and rising house prices. You may never own. Getting a loan just locks you into an inflation proof price as a "forced" savings. I don't think it's realistic at all for 85% of Americans to save for a new house.
If you save $2.5k/mo for 15 years, after 14 years (mid-30s), you’d have $800k at 8% interest.
Even in Seattle, $800k would get you a decent starter home.
(I chose $2.5k, bc 15 years ago out of college, that’s how much I saved living in GA on a $70k salary). I saved even more when I move to California in my mid 20s.
That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right?
Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund.
It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.
> That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right?
No, it isn’t. You can invest your savings. If you had put $2,500.00 a month into SPY500 since October 2009 (15 years ago) you’d have $1,388,302.13 today.
> Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund.
How is saving for a house “on top of” literally “saving”? If you can save for retirement, savings, and emergencies then you have the mental fortitude to save for a house. People are bad with money, we know that. One of the best examples is buying a house they can’t afford.
> It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.
Yeah, I just think examples like this need to work for the masses in order to be useful otherwise they're just pie in the sky advice like abstinence to prevent childbirth. It does work and it's 100% effective but humans are horny. Same with saving this amount of money, there's a select few that can pull it off but most are incapable. Those are the people advice is for
>Live within your means and save as much as you can
It's expensive being poor and the job market isn't getting better to compensate this economy. If you rent forever you spend more than someone paying off a mortgage (only amortized by needing to upkeep the house youself). If you're wokrking your back out everyday you're more likely to pay more insurance and medical bills than the cushy white collar job with proggresion options.
Most people don't even have the $1000 rainy day fund. They are 3 steps removed from the thought of a "diversified portfolio".
They can’t afford a rainy day fund so they should buy a house?
I have a “cushy white collar job” and I can’t afford a house. Prices are absurd. I can make mortgage payments but it would destroy any other savings. Buying a house when poor isn’t a smart financial move.
I wish everyone could afford a house but that’s not the world we live in. Nothing will change until people wake up and stop killing themselves to inflate home prices.
Just because you buy something doesn’t mean you can afford it.
If you can’t retire or pay medical expenses or maintain your physical and emotional wellbeing because you spent money on a house then you couldn’t afford it. Owning a house doesn’t mean you can pay the property taxes or maintenance costs.
My point is that people are making financially unsound home buying purchases.
Another way to say this is that Bugatti doesn’t sell Veyrons to people with $1,000,000.00. Bugatti sells Veyrons to people with an extra $1,000,000.00.
Now I’m curious how this happened. This is the portion of homes owned by their residents, not the number of owned homes as a portion of total population. I’m also curious what the income and wealth to home ratios are. Looks like I have a weekend project.
The pre-war/post war duality is easy to understand. The US made it official policy to increase homeownership. The government subsidizes housing for all income levels and there was tons of housing built.
The post-war era has seen only minor changes in homeownership rates. And those tend to be around macro economic events like 2008 and Covid (and the Reagan era mortgage rates woof).
My bet is simple: Boomers are all at retirement age if we use the cap of 1954, they were basically given land during the post-war boom. Many had a lifetime career so there was no need to constantly hustle and move about to get a comfortable life. Home ownership is likely very top heavy for Boomers and older Gen X as a result.
If that's even in the ballpark we're going to see a lot of assets aquired by insurance and hospitals to pay off the final years and this residential ownershio will torpeo.
The census bureau has looked at this. The Reagan years hit boomers hard causing their percentage of homeownership to drop compared to a similar age cohort historically. Then 2008 wrecked the young boomers and gen x similarly.
In general terms the oldest cohort has steadily advanced in home ownership (I’d guess due to our welfare for the aged that isn’t needs based and better old age health, not land gifts but who knows). So there is definitely a trend of the oldest age cohort increasing its homeownership % while the other cohorts decrease.
But for the under 35 crowd today, they own their own home at a higher percentage than boomers or gen x did when they were in that cohort.
There is also the consideration that the US is just older than it’s ever been. I’m not a demographer do I have no idea how that plays out.
No, those are considered. That $2,500/mo is at the bottom of your career. You will be saving more as you age, even accounting for employment gaps.
If we are considering kids, presumably there is another partner (and income) to be added to the equation. While you may have half the amount saved due to the cost of raising children, your partner would have the other half.
8% was chosen to discount 3% inflation (cost of living) from SnP 500’s average 11% growth.
Ah yeah fair. The numbers I quoted are median and I don’t have the source. They are from a quick search of financial news. Your index numbers are probably a more sound comparison of overall house prices.
But even using the index numbers it isn’t hard to see that housing prices do in fact go both up and down.
They are not going down because of lack of inventory. Look at commercial, some properties had an 80% discount. But that requires that supply overwhelms demand. It’s not happening with regular housing.
That's not guaranteed, and not how you save for a fixed goal.
I don't know of any lower-risk and higher-interest alternative to the 30-years-fixed that is currently offered to US consumers, and based of the above answer, neither do you.
Yes, it’s a tragedy of the commons. That doesn’t make taking on a loan you can’t afford less of a bad idea.
House prices are unaffordable because people take on loans they can’t afford. This reinforces the unaffordable prices. If milk was $40.00 a gallon you’d just stop putting it on cereal and eventually farmers get the message. Houses are the same thing.
If you can’t comfortably afford a house then don’t buy it. You’re stuck renting or buying something more modest. This isn’t complicated.
The idea that house prices can only go up is delusional. Nothing about a house is uniquely inflation proof or even inflation resistant. This isn’t the only investment vehicle available to you.
This idea that houses are an important part of financial security is putting the cart in front of the horse. It leads to the NIMBYism that prevents additional supply from being built because prices must always go up.
We all exist in the same economy and no action happens in a vacuum. When you buy something you have reduced supply and applied upward pressure on price. Individually this effect is so small it is immeasurable. In aggregate it isn’t.
This was a failure of regulation, not just in the US but elsewhere too; banks and mortgage brokers weren't doing their due diligence and were giving out loans and mortgages that people couldn't afford based on their income and other outstanding debts, eventually leading to the 2007/8 financial crisis.
Which should have been a lesson, but five years later, housing prices recovered and ballooned. I don't know why besides increased demand and reduced availability, clearly people can still get mortgages despite the lessons learned from the crisis.
I had a bug squash interview today. I found it nice, but also frustrating.
It was nice because I didn't need to practice and I knew exactly how to debug the thing.
It was frustrating because my personal laptop is from 7 years ago (from college), is slow, and the dependencies and editor don't work out of the box for an a new repo. Additionally, I'd prefer to use IntelliJ like I do at work but again, that's too heavy for my computer to handle so I resort to vscode and have to figure out how to use it. So then the interview becomes debugging my environment instead of debugging the problem. Maybe that's a useful signal, but it's not really bug squashing anymore then.
So overall, it was still requiring learning but there was not a very good way to test in advance (how do you test all possible repo structures?)
Do you do marketing as well? I'd assume not based on the no JS-analytics so I'm curious what your customer acquisition methods are, as in how they find out about your business?
Author here, I think most new signups are through traffic from search engines and through word of mouth, Healthchecks.io gets regular mentions in Reddit /r/selfhosted. I've dabbled with paid ads (Google search, Reddit, Twitter, EthicalAds) but without analytics it was shooting in the dark.
Genuine question: Is fraud actually something that costs Stripe money when it comes to payouts?
The reason credit card fraud for charges costs money to processors is because of charge backs. I believe charge back fees originate from the card networks themselves (Visa, MasterCard, etc). These processors also enforce a variety of limits when it comes to chargebacks for each merchant. This means if you're the layer between the merchant and the network, the merchants generally will rely on you to pre-emptively detect fraud. Those systems all cost money too.
As far as I know when it comes to payout rails such as ACH, real time payments (RTP), Zelle, I don't believe the payment processor holds any liability for fraudulent transactions. In other words, if a fraudulent payout occurs through stripe via RTP then The Clearing House banks aren't going to come after stripe for the money. They'll tell the end user "whoops, should've taken better care of your digital info. Bye!"
source: Worked at a payment processor and worked on payout rails and integrating with banks. Also do work now as an end user of a different payment processor that does charging, payouts, etc.
It's not that simple. Charge backs are a game of hot potato originating at the card issuing bank and making its way back to the merchant.
If Stripe instantly pays out funds to a merchant and there is a charge back, they have to claw that money back. This is normally done by drafting the funds from the deposit account, but if that is empty Stripe (or whatever processor) eats it and it becomes a collections issue.
Processors normally handle this by holding funds on suspicious transactions for 180 days (the max chargeback window). What is suspicious? For most processors it is literally whatever adds up to a [fraud rate]% of your volume over a 180 day window. Stripe doesn't do this because they are "the friendly processor" so they just take a bigger slice and cover losses out of that.
source: I spend a non-trivial amount of time monitoring threat actors and figuring out exactly how they are doing bad stuff, which means understanding the risk/abuse side of the house
Im imagining a meeting about some project design, and thinking about how it'd go if someone suggested using parentheses to represent nodes of a tree. I imagine it'd get written off quickly. Not because it wouldn't work, but because of the complexity and learning curve involved.