Tiktok Deal Is the Shittiest Possible Outcome, Making Everything Worse
Key topics
The TikTok deal has sparked heated debate, with some arguing it's a victory for Democrats who wanted to curb the platform's influence on the Israel narrative. However, others counter that the ban was always about national security concerns, pointing out that discussions around banning TikTok predated the October 7 incident. As commenters dug in, some highlighted the irony that the US is allowing its own surveillance capitalism firms to thrive while cracking down on TikTok, with one commenter noting that this logic could lead to banning Facebook and X in Europe. Amidst the back-and-forth, the discussion reveals a complex web of geopolitics, free speech, and the role of social media in shaping public opinion.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
12m
Peak period
148
0-12h
Avg / period
22.9
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 19, 2025 at 11:14 AM EST
15 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 19, 2025 at 11:26 AM EST
12m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
148 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 24, 2025 at 8:56 PM EST
9 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
With Ellison in charge that will happen. That’s what democrats wanted.
https://www.jewishfederations.org/blog/all/jewish-federation...
And new owners have directly donated to Israeli's war efforts:
https://www.newarab.com/news/pro-israel-billionaires-and-uae...
Probably because like 1/4 of the American economy at this point is held up by surveillance capitalism firms like Meta, Google, Amazon, etc. all of whom's bread and butter is violating privacy on an industrial scale, so saying "TikTok is dangerous because it spies on people" is flagrantly hypocritical.
The fact that the big scary Chinese Government can tweak algorithms to elevate content and potentially sway public opinion is a fair criticism and I would agree with it, if not for the fact that the hypothetical situation being used to justify it is America equally openly funding and supporting an ongoing genocide. That barely qualifies as propaganda, that's literally just pointing out what the United States is doing and why it's ethically indefensible, and we could stop doing it tomorrow and utterly defang the aforementioned propaganda. But we don't.
And, lastly, TikTok is not going away. It's simply going to enrich Americans now, instead of the Chinese. A bit. And I'm sure plenty of that money will find it's way back to the Trump administration because our country is corrupt as all hell.
So forgive me if I've just absolutely not one ounce of patience for this bullshit.
When you see Larry Ellison (a massive donor to those interests) leading the consortium to buy it right after those comments, dismissing it as a conspiracy is crazy when they're basically saying the quiet part out loud.
You can, of course, make the argument that Facebook, Twitter, etc are also similar threats to other countries and _that is why they aren't allowed in China_.
I agree that this resolution is a worst-case-scenario outcome, though.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's the logical endgame here.
Surely search is something that should be more neutral than social media.
This only makes sense. People correctly understood that foreign media organizations are a risk to self-governance and the tech companies which took much of their power should be treated the same way.
What I imagine the incentive is is not the ability to censor the media, but to have the media on record of who posts it and who engages with it and maintain that ledger. When people get banned and slandered for denouncing a genocide, it becomes harder and harder to call this stuff "low-IQ conspiracy slop".
> This was never about addressing privacy, propaganda, or national security. It was always about the U.S. stealing ownership of one of the most popular and successful short form video apps in history because companies like Facebook were too innovatively incompetent to dethrone them in the open market. Ultimately this bipartisan accomplishment not only makes everything worse, it demonstrates we’re absolutely no better than the countries we criticize.
I think when PAFACA passed and set up a ban of TikTok, it was in fact about privacy and propaganda and national security. It’s just that the Trump administration looks at every single situation as an opportunity for grift and corruption, and they abused the opportunity.
The deal does shift algorithmic control and moderation to US based entities. I am not sure what that means in reality. Maybe they can just say they’re in control but choose to use the existing system? Who knows. The terms of the deal look like they help with the original concerns on the face of it.
I disagree. I think was about making sure Americans see the "RIGHT" propaganda.
American companies just want to acquire all our money. China wants to convince us to withdraw from the rest of the world so they can take over everything they want.
No, when it passed it was about covering up a genocide that we finance. Before that, when it failed, it was just your standard anti-China nastiness meant to give the hot property with the youth mindshare to local cronies who were amenable to total social media censorship in general, like what all of the other networks were meeting with the last administration weekly to do.
Now the property will be given to local cronies and primarily used to help cover up a genocide, sounds like exactly what people who supported this stupid bill of attainder were begging for. Partisans of the last administration just thought they'd be in power forever for some reason, and they could use it as an additional means to attack supporters of what became the current administration.
They all seem to be fighting for the minds of young people who hate them all. I think they're just going to start leaving the entire internet like a previous generation left facebook when it got taken over by their radical centrist fossil parents. The kids will have to get bored with TikTok eventually, unless their daily pharmaceutical cocktails have stunted their brain development. Especially with the deluge of AI.
People get tunnel-vision. Facebook is for "Facebook things", TikTok is for "TikTok things". Reels, stories, whatevers isn't "TikTok".
It's why Facebook bought Instagram. No matter if Facebook copied Instagram down to the pixel, it still wouldn't be Instagram. And it's why the branding has remained consistent.
Same thing with Google and YouTube.
It's why these acquisitions happen and why these companies become something else. Google to Alphabet, Facebook to Meta, etc.
This just forces the sale of TikTok to someone in the U.S.
TikTok is Chinese Youtube YouTube is Western TikTok
Both are cancer.
You can't compare one service like YouTube has been existing longer than TikTok, a completely different platform and vision.
> Can you find research seminars on TikTok? TikTok isn't nor the platform for such. The link has results.
https://www.tiktok.com/tag/researchseminar
Sure, you can find white paper previews on Tiktok.
YouTube keeps pushing it harder and harder. On the AppleTV, search often returns 90% Shorts, with no way to filter them out.
>Tiktok does not give you a 5 year life expectancy 12 year old life expectancy.
> The lawsuit, filed in the US on Thursday, claims that Isaac Kenevan, 13, Archie Battersbee, 12, Julian "Jools" Sweeney, 14, and Maia Walsh, 13, died while attempting the so-called "blackout challenge".
The effects of Heroin, includes addiction, TikTok caters to that.
Heroin can cause physical dependency, FOMO which TikTok caters too
Heroin is highly addictive, isn't TikTok?
While it may not be "heroin" in the true sense it is definitely an issue of Digital Heroin.
TikTok is in no way like heroin, stop using that false analogy
The mental effects of heroin match those of TikTok. How is it not?
some people feel like they are addicted to short form content but it’s really nothing like a drug addiction much less an addiction to something as devastating as heroin
A motorbike is faster than a car, but both hit the rode.
TikTok causes chemical release in the brain and can cause other self psychological damage.
Heroin causes chemical release in the brain in the brain, and can cause other self psychological damage.
What's the difference, other than consumption? Both are addictions, both are hard to fight when they're waving a sharp knife in your face.
> TikTok causes chemical release in the brain
Basically everything causes a chemical release in the brain. For example HN does as well, would you compare posting on HN to heroin?
> both are hard to fight
I know and knew people both addicted to heroin and to TikTok. Let me assure you that ditching a short-form content addiction is VASTLY more easy than ditching heroin.
> the effects of Heroin which comes with addiction and the cravings are some-what mimicked within the realms of TikTok
This is true for everything that humans enjoy. Next you gonna say that talking a walk in nature or working out is like heroin because I enjoy it and I’m addicted to it (if I don’t do it every day I feel bad and I have a compulsion to do it every day)
> why do you think the world is in utter shit
I disagree with that assessment, the “world” as a whole is actually much better than it used to be 30 years ago. Of course that might not be the case for you individually but then this thread is more about your feelings than an objective observation of the world.
> At least with Heroin you need to inject.
Most heroin users don’t inject which ones again shows you don’t know anything about it outside of tropes and cliches.
“At least with TikTok you need a smartphone and internet and swipe to unlock” - see how dumb that makes me sound?
Don’t get me wrong I dislike the tech hegemony and social media as much as you - I just think your way of arguing damages your position more than it helps it.
I disagree with that assessment that the “world” as a whole is actually much better than it used to be 30 years ago.But that's another topic for another day. I'm not here to angst.
Social Media is addicting. I use none and explaining it as "heroin" may be an extreme way to present the thought but at least it represents the curse of it.
You're literally describing any activity that someone enjoys doing generating natural dopamine, and then comparing it to a drug that crosses your blood-brain barrier and mimicks your brain's chemistry to give you a chemical version of that. The difference in dopamine levels is orders of magnitude. I would be surprised if Tiktok generated even 1/10th the dopamine level of using methamphetamine.
Eating, having sex, finishing writing your first novel, winning a race, doing breath work, doing yoga, rock climbing, and an unlimited supply of examples generate dopamine in our brains the same way that Tiktok does.
It's highly addictive. The negative effects are somewhat diffuse and may take a while to really impact your life, but they're very real.
And, rather importantly, it's legal and widely available, and the industry behind them is suppressing evidence of their harms and making tons of money off of addiction.
If it's the first thing you think about when you wake up, and it kills you to sleep at night, and you think about it all day, sure, one's a highly addictive habit that destroys lives, and the other is heroin. Which is also a highly addictive habit that destroys lives. Funnily enough, one destroys lives because it's legal, and the other destroys lives because it's illegal. But if you're taking your phone to bed with you at night, and it's the first thing you check in the morning, before you even have a thought to yourself, okay, you're not injecting it with a needle under a freeway underpass but after you get fired for watching TikTok on the clock and can't pay your rent, is you're landlord gonna care when you don't pay rent whether you got fired for drugs or a smartphone addiction?
Because "digital heroin" is a nonsense phrase used as a thought-terminating cliché.
> when the side-effects are the same of?
Assuming that this is intended to be something like "when the side effects are the same as those of heroin?" then the premise is false; the effects (side or otherwise) of TikTok are not meaningfully similar to those of heroin.
Also assuming your heroin isn't tainted it isn't toxic and you can have a normal life expectancy.
Can we all stop pretending it's a not an issue?
China just wants us to buy cheap Chinese crap.
Everyone knows Facebook/Meta is actually the heroin. A product intentionally designed to steal your life and enrich its owners. Duh
> Only people with no actual life experience with drugs or drug users would make such an asinine and overtly hyperbolic statement as that.
Do you have any life experience with drugs?
Unfortunately, whether it's a deadly drug or a deadly disease, these casual references are unlikely to drop from public discourse anytime soon. And I personally would rather live in a world where insensitive or potentially-triggering language is gently discouraged, than one where the pendulum swings too far the other way towards censorship or radical left woke cancel culture. Words can be unintentionally callous without being "micro-aggressions". (And I say that as a liberal progressive.)
Thanks for posting in a personal and persuasive manner, instead of anger. Yours is the more effective approach anyway.
I'd hope to hold this community to a higher standard than "the public discourse".
(I don’t use TikTok so I don’t know first hand!)
If you want proof, watch someone’s feed with them. Invariably they will start to apologize. Classic “he’s different when we’re alone” rationalization for an addictive substance
This is my experience as well. I don't use the app, so my only direct experience is watching with someone scrolling their feed.
Perhaps the algorithm has gotten better since, but I had no reason to want to use it after that.
A lot of the people in my age group (Millennials) decided that TikTok was where we were going to get off the "hot new social media platform" train.
The Zoomers and GenAlpha kids seemed to be the people really using it, but I'm just a crotchety old guy with a bald head and a gut and an office job at this point, so I don't know what the hip young people are up to with their Tok Clocks and their loud rock music.
If Insta and youtube shorts get enough traction, there's no reason creators won't simply post to each of them to maximize their reach. The legacy platforms are heavily courting/promoting short form video, why leave possible monetization on the table?
Hell, I'm too old for their demo, but I see TikTok videos posted to Reddit and even BlueSky.
They are both very similar obviously, but the social network on one isn't the same as the other.
I heard this argument about TV and videogames before
Have you every heard a heroin addict comparing heroin to TV?
Sports, dance, family, etc.
Everybody knows too many people for an anecdote to make videogames and heroin the same. It's like pointing out some school shooter played a violent video games; so did the people they shot. You need to disprove the null hypothesis; not show that there exists evidence.
That's like saying "one who cannot go without food is the same as one who is addicted to heroin." You're engaging in superficiality to the point that all distinction is made meaningless.
> It's like pointing out some school shooter played a violent video games
That's a totally different argument
Yes, that's the point.
>That's a totally different argument
Not really. It's the Millenial equivalent the satanic rock scare. Politicians will always use these kinds of tricks to influence opinion and even enact laws.
I want more than sound bites if we're going to compare addiction to something as well studied as hard drugs.
It sounds like the author would have preferred that a different group of billionaires take over.
If your first reaction is “but that won’t work!” then you don’t really believe in a free speech based society, and all that’s left to do is argue over which group of shadowy billionaires should get to control everyone.
While I believe in free speech, free speech isn't some panacea.
On the other hand, the right way to deal with surveillance and dossier based manipulation tactics by external actors, is not to pick on one actor, but to make surveillance and dossier based manipulation illegal for all companies that want to operate in the national marketplace.
The enshittification of the world is being driven by this hostile business model. And it isn't just foreign adversaries who are benefiting at societies cost.
The constant collecting, collating, and converging of data on anyone doing anything that pervades the private economy now is deeply parasitical.
who are you intending to tell about these tiktok lies? how do you know if youve told the right people? what algorithm is going to pick up your corrections as equally viral as the lies were?
if youre actually going to do it, i think you need your own shadowy billionaire funding paying the various social media companies to pretend that your version of the truth is popular. maybe multiple shadowy billionaires.
I don't know how we conclude that:
> The new U.S. operations of TikTok will have three “managing investors” that will collectively own 45 percent of the company: Oracle Corporation, Silver Lake, and MGX.
> the private equity firm Silver Lake (which has broad global investments in Chinese and Israeli hyper-surveillance)
> 30.1 percent will be “held by affiliates of certain existing investors of ByteDance; and 19.9 percent will be retained by ByteDance.”
Now we have oligarchs, plus a major surveillance investor group, plus the Chinese.
This doesn't seem to be a solution to anything except that "a deal was made", and any further attempts at cleaning up credible risks have so many players to deal with, they would be DOA.
It's very optimistic to assume that China was beaten here.
Bytedance still owns the algorithm and 30% of the new company. This new wrapper firm is just being granted the license to serve as Bytedance's operations, essentially. All the stuff about it being 'trained on US content' and 'overseen' by Oracle is smoke and mirrors. This is really just the zombie of the deal that was done four years[1] ago and then quietly scrubbed.
This isn't significantly different than the way TikTok has been operating all along, the only difference is a few of the administration's cronies are able to get their heads into the feeding trough.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/19/trump-says-he-has-approved-t...
They won't. The entire point of this charade is to remind Americans we can't expect any better than instagram or youtube.
2026 in a nutshell, yes. The Daily Watergate of American history.
I am not saying the China shock was fake, or that they don’t exploit migrant workers, or that their currency manipulation and financial repression were/are good. I just think we should be skeptical that national security arguments are motivated by virtue, especially when “the good” is largely confined to what’s good for USA tech
IMO the bigger problem is that national security is only part of the problem. An unknowable algorithm controlled by the Ellisons is not necessarily less dangerous than one controlled by China, the motivations are just different.
This is not a left versus right thing. China being unchallenged in the world will spell a quality of life decrease for us in the West. They are not “the good guys.” You’re free to see both parties as ‘neutral’ in alignment, but you still don’t want to have to be the losing party when they come into conflict. My point is China is not going to be sharing any of what they gain with Americans, even the ones who cheer for them - it’ll in fact be coming at your expense.
The CPC having a direct feed into the brains of every Gen Z and younger American is trivially easy to exploit - and there is a 0% chance that they won’t do so next year when they will likely invade Taiwan. If China is in control of TikTok, they’ll boost a ton of propaganda, supposedly people “from Taiwan” who greet the PLA as liberators, explaining how Taiwan being independent is actually oppression, and how they’ve always considered themselves part of the PRC, only evil politicians were keeping them apart. And they’ll make sure to suppress all media that exposes the violence on the ground. Finally, they’ll boost content urging Americans to protest US involvement and to sabotage the military, such as by chaining themselves to ships, etc.
Ryan McBeth has made a ton of videos laying out how this will work, and he does a better job than I have of explaining this.
TikTok is a cyberweapon.
The last war China was involved with was 1979 compared to America, today mind you, that is on the cusp of invading Venezuela because Rubio has a moronic axe to grind.
It's really hard to not see the facade for what it is: rich people are upset that their world order is collapsing.
Frankly who care? Give me universal medicare, universal childcare, and public higher education then maybe, just maybe, I might start to care about all this stuff that only seems to make people lives worse not better.
Sadly you have to start caring for things to get better first.
Why am I suppose to care that people in Africa are pushing for better worker rights and decolonialization? Because the executives as Nestle might make slightly lower money? That big tech can't extract more blood minerals? Boo hoo, it's not like this has ever benefited American citizens writ large.
Also the UN is worthless, if this is suppose to scare people you might lose your hat come election night in 2026.
And I’ll take recognizing a communist party over dropping napalm on em.
Can't be taken seriously if you're going to elide that "detail".
The platform’s direct financial incentives are almost identical to malicious state actors’: to foment extreme engagement. It is not a secret to anyone that people engage most actively with outrage.
Content moderation costs money directly, then costs engagement indirectly.
I’m genuinely confused by your comment.
You said X has no incentive to allow foreign influence ops. Very clearly, not only do they have an incentive to allow them, but they have an additional disincentive to disallowing them (cost).
The fact those aligned incentives originate from different ultimate goals is totally irrelevant for as long as the two are aligned.
A Chinese owned TikTok simply doesn't follow the same calculus. If the CEO of Bytedance (note different from the CEO of TikTok) gets a order flood the platform with anti-Taiwanese propaganda right before China invades Taiwan, the CEO would have to follow through even if it causes the value of TikTok to zero. The ban was not about how much harm TikTok has done already, it's about how much harm they can do in a worst case scenario.
Like this US one?
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...
America's incompetent leadership is self-inflicted. Biden's 2020 campaign strategy was pro status quo ante - which I find similar to your appeal to "normalcy". Unfortunately, this message did not resonate with voters in 2024. I suspect "getting back to normal" is not enough for Gens Y & Z, who have already lost a class war whose existence they may not be aware of.
Big Capital is not my friend and its not most peoples friend, even if some of us here were lucky enough to be useful to them for now.
My previous bosses would move to fire me or get me transferred out of their org if they found out I valued getting my employees paid more, over literally anything else that moved the bottom line.
> And when we vote we need to remember that things that look bad for us homeowners like allowing big development companies to come in and raze all of our houses and build townhomes and apartments for rent might be necessary to keep the bad situation from getting worse.
This has been explained for years. At best the reaction gotten from homeowners can be paraphrased to, “yea, I hope you keep the commons working, but I got my bag”
> Or, if we do nothing and let the status quo reign, our kids will suddenly find themselves renting everything they use for the rest of their lives.
There’s other options too after the ballot box stops working and your life is permanently worse under the status quo, but you are not allowed to discuss those options on Western social media sites
Sheltered Gen-Z Americans, who have never known a disordered society love to talk about revolution, but they are so ill prepared for something like that. It’s not even funny. To be clear, none of us in the “first world” are prepared for something like that.
You know why he did it? Credible threat of violent revolution.
That's what it takes.
When we are discussing the United States of America, the nation founded on one of the most famously successful violent revolutions, to the point that we teach our children to celebrate it every year, your claim is that violent revolutions can not be a solution?
The only way some millennials will own house is by inheriting them from boomers, and the rest of the housing stock will be mostly bought by corporate investors. Everyone else will rent until death, and provide reccuring income to make the graph go up.
Gen Z is simply unique as the "full immersion" generation. It's uniquely hard to ignore the youth unemployment for kids who are spending more than ever to be educated, or being hard locked out of minimum wage jobs our parents would scare us with because they lack a bachelor's degree.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcollins/2025/12/15/compu...
or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291504
Your statement might be correct, but the dust has yet to settle for us to be able to determine that.
The issue is that trust was intentionally sabotaged.
China has pulled many poor people or of poverty. Generations. You don't see this in media. You're comment is just misinformed and wrong.
1. China overtakes the US -> US society directly decines and thats it. (Your scenario)
2. China overtakes the US -> It takes out the elites with everyone else (what Gen-Z likely wants to see)
3. US manages to hold on -> Elites continue their trajectory of snapping everything up leaving the crumbs for everyone else. (The best case scenario pro-US people can hope for right now)
4. US manages to hold on -> They somehow decide to reform and implement v2.0 of New Deal. (The dream of the bernie sanders wing ie. a pipedream at this point)
You are really showing your age with your attitude.
Put yourself in Gen-Z's shoes. What is realistic at this point? What can even millenials hope for?
The best case is that they end up being a transitional generation that helps their kids survive their childhood and grow into a decent adult life. The worse case is managed decline.
Either way Gen Y and Gen Z are done for. This amazing American system you defend has ruined these generations long term outlooks and Trump's bumbling has already written their final chapters.
> This was never about addressing ... national security
You have no idea what you are talking about.
213 more comments available on Hacker News