TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

> hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.

Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple.

'cos we're all equal, no?

> Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.

When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.

Which specific owner is the Chinese government?

[flagged]

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?

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.

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.

It’s federal law, and the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.

The courts on the other hand can permanently block laws.

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.

Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.

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.

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.

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.

Do you need to eat shit to know it is shit?

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!?

They want to be able to livestream the inauguration tomorrow on Tiktok.

They shut down long enough to get attention but not long enough for people to find another platform

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.

even if someone wishes they were a dictator of the USA doesn’t mean that they are

Republicans have the benefit of not having guilt around saying things that are patently not true while the Democrats are still trying to act within norms.

It is asymmetrical warfare on the truth.

It's a response to the fact that democrats can create widespread misperceptions through their control of traditional media. For example, in 2018, 66% of Democrats believed that "Russia tampered with vote tallies to get Donald Trump elected President." https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20383-russias-imp.... Hillary Clinton never went out and said quite that. But the barrage of coverage from all angles in the media created the same impression as if she had said that.

In another example: how many people know that, after the 2000 election, the Supreme Court found 7-2 that Al Gore's proposed recount strategy was unconstitutional? Nobody knows that Al Gore had employed a strategy of hand-counting ballots only in counties he had won to find more countable votes that would swing disproportionately in his favor.[1] The media completely blacked that out, and everyone now only remembers the 5-4 part of the decision addressing how to fix that constitutional violation. There's more people under the misimpression that Kathleen Harris or Jeb fixed the election in Bush's favor than understand the sneaky maneuvering by Gore that precipitated the whole mess.

[1] E.g. if Gore won a county 2:1, then statistically, every vote rejected by the machine that could be hand counted would be twice as likely to be a Gore vote than a Bush vote. Gore found a loophole in Florida election law that allowed him to use that principle to find more votes in his favor by seeking hand recounts only in two large counties he had won.

>you must [...] never criticize the administration or face the consequences of being ostracized, attacked, power revoked, and prosecuted by a weaponized DOJ.

It's not "never". JD Vance published a book criticizing Trump, and still got picked as VP.

I mean it’s a compromise, usually both sides are unhappy when a compromise is made haha.

There are real concerns that the CCP could use it as a tool to manipulate and spy on the American people. There’s a good reason why Tik Tok is being banned in many countries around the world. Also a good reason why China bans and tightly controls American social media companies in their country.

But if we agree to compromise, we can ideally find a balance where the average American is best served.

It is the setup for all companies which are not banned in China lol

Money, speech, press... The mafia has many avenues of control...

> You may want to become concerned when the president can unilaterally contravene laws passed by congress and validated by the Supreme Court.

It seems prudent to say given this seems to the prevailing narrative: this did not happen. The law is still in effect and Tiktok is still banned[0]. The service shutdown that many experienced yesterday was one Tiktok performed voluntarily, presumably in protest of the ban. Tiktok's decision to restore the service was one they could have made at any point after the shutdown, regardless of any statements made by the then-President-Elect.

0: If you don't believe me, uninstall it from your phone and re-download it. ;)

That's exactly what it is. The people breathlessly compiling a list of "what abouts" for this type of corruption need to look past their nose. 2 things can be fucked up at the same time, and one of those things being fucked up isn't an excuse for the other thing to continue being fucked up.

Also, when one of those "what abouts" is verifiably false, as in the case of the guy who made claims about Hunter's laptop, it's completely meaningless. Those people are comparing to something that doesn't even exist.

It's a stupid, losing game that way too many people want to play.

His main policy seems to be to show the world that he's a big man with big genitalia. And in fairness, he is quite successful at that because much of the world thinks him a gigantic dick.

I'm not really joking, because that really does seem to be the underlying philosophy in what he does: it's whatever he thinks makes him the "big man tough guy". Trying to analyse things beyond that just doesn't make much sense.

More power and more flattery, that's it.

Look I don’t want to carry any water for him whatsoever, but I think it’s going to be essential to couch criticism in the rule-of-law setting we think should prevail. To that end, the text of the relevant section is:

> With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that, […]

where “would otherwise apply” is pretty clearly not predicated on the preceding section having come into effect or not.

Both liberal and conservative presidents have made choices about whether or not they will enforce particular laws passed by Congress. This is nothing new. It's just getting a lot more media attention than most instances of this have gotten.

(A very common example: many people in the US can walk into a store and buy marijuana without fear of prosecution because the last several presidents -- from both parties -- have chosen not to enforce that particular federal law.)

Certainly the courts can (and sometimes do) get involved, but the only thing that can force the executive branch to act is for the House to impeach the president, and for the Senate to convict. And the House is not going to impeach Trump over this, or pretty much anything.

I doubt judges would take your side on this interpretation of the law. Wanna put some money on this bet?

Its a stretch to consider this law breaking. The president either does or does not have authority here, but the only one breaking the law would be ByteDance.

Biden wasn't considered to have broken the law when courts threw out his plan to forgive school debt. The president tried something, the courts found the order to be invalid as the rule didn't fit the current laws, and everyone moved on about their business without claiming the president broke the law or implying he should have been charged.

What do you mean "What the hell happened?"

The question is about how we handle the coming elections four years from now, not the previous one. If he's going to be a dictator it will only be possible when he's in power.

America spoke and said they wanted it, what more is there to be said? If there was marching in the streets, it would be torn to shreds by the online grift sphere.

Because it was mostly being astroturfed. Democracy obviously isn't going to end in any way, shape, or fashion under Trump.

And so the organizations pushing these lies need to move onto the next lies to keep the rage and fear going. Maybe this time around it'll be Trump is secretly controlled by China - must be why he reversed the TikTok ban.

His campaign is large enough that there's probably some guy in it, no more than a degree or two separation away, banging a Chinese spy a la Eric Swalwell. Tie it to Trump, start a new committee of absurdity and away we go.

It'd actually provide some logic to banning TikTok which was just politically absurd when Trump would predictably reverse that, to much fanfare.

> For anyone that honestly believes that, why pack up and go home when Trump wins the election?

You're wondering why people who are pro-democracy are respecting the outcome of the election?

Elon Musk literally held an illegal sweepstakes paying people to vote in Pennsylvania. And given Elon Musk's position in the new government, its clear that his sweepstakes has led to direct benefits from Trump. It was direct quid-pro-quo and no one is doing anything about it.

The courts were too slow to stop the sweepstakes and now that Trump is in power, we all know Musk would be pardoned of this crime. So no one is bothering to prosecute.

The election fraud already happened. Now tell me who the hell is going to punish the troublemakers?

The US activity supported similar atrocities in Palestine, and there was bipartisan support for that.

I don’t have an answer to your question.

>. How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his bootlickers?

Because the reality is, a good majority people in the USA have a very good life, even the lower class, contrary to what the media may have you believe. So when the majority doesn't show up to vote, its because they think it doesn't matter who is in charge.

These are the people everyone should hold primarily responsible for whatever bad things happen. The MAGA type crowds are always going to exist in one shape or form, and its everyone's responsibility to vote so that the bad side doesn't take power.

It’s of course always possible that you are the blind one. Maybe one day you’ll grow out of it.

> How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his bootlickers?

Not sure if you are serious, but the problem on both sides of the disagreement is caused by the illusory nature of consciousness, and is exacerbated the fact that our culture does not study that phenomenon despite how incredibly important it is.

This is what people should be arguing over rather than yet another consequence of it.

> There is no way this isn’t being looked at closely.

Who's going to look at it? Whichever sycophant ends up being AG?

He is now immune from prosecution, financial crimes will be pretty low on the list of things that would breach the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter.

I could see a world where the lawyers have cooked a progressively more egregious set of legal violations to test the bounds of the new authority granted by the Supreme Court. Up next is probably a mandate that foreign diplomats/us government employees stay at trump properties at exorbitant prices for “security purposes”.

Closely by whom? Tomorrow, Trump and his sycophants will control the DoJ.

If you're talking about a future administration, we've already seen what happens when Trump leaves office and people try to hold him accountable: absolutely nothing.

> I think those chickens just haven’t come home to roost yet.

People have been saying that about Trump's antics literally his entire life.

> Is the US dollar going to survive this presidency? Honest question.

1000% yes. Not only is it going to survive, but it will probably beat out all other major fiat currencies over the next 4 years.

Thank you for correcting me

I think replies to this will be one of two:

* Legally the executive is not granted this power.

* But in practice they are because who's going to make them?

The entity responsible for enforcement always has this power. It's why DA races where the platform is essentially law nullification by way of non-enforcement have been happening for some light criminal justice reform that can't get through the legislature.

Why would Apple or Google want to take the risk? They are not TikTok, they don't stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars of value.

[dead]

It's not illegal, nor a high crime. It is in fact established precedent that this is in the purview of presidential power. This is why FBI agents are not raiding every marijuana shop in DC or the states that legalized it: since Obama, every president has chosen to instruct the justice department not to enforce federal law in this matter in those states.

As opposed to the Democrats that refuse to enforce immigration law, or refuse to prosecute all sorts of crime they don't feel like (Except when they have to "Get Trump by all means")?

We can play this game all day, so let's just agree Democracy is broken.

You're ignoring established precedent. Look at Obama choosing not to enforce federal bans on marijuana use in states that have legalized it - that is a policy of not enforcing well established federal law that has been reinforced by every subsequent president for the past 12? 16? years now.

> the executive branch MUST enforce it

Or what?

(I'm not being flippant. Are there consequences I'm not aware of if he decides not to enforce?)

Your understanding of the law is incorrect when you say "the executive branch MUST enforce it". Administrations of all political stripes have decided not to enforce parts of particular laws. And this is precisely because "enforcement" means you need to use limited resources to prosecute someone for breaking the law, and the executive branch has always had wide latitude deciding who they prosecute. If Congress decides the president is not faithfully enforcing the laws, their option is impeachment. Well, we all saw how that went the last few times...

The thing that is shocking to me about the current TikTok situation is that while Trump may be free to say "I won't enforce this law", he can't write any sort of executive order overturning the law, and I think it's pretty disgusting the media isn't pushing back against this more (except for Kara Swisher, who made this exact point) and saying this isn't possible.

The law is explicit that any company (like Apple, Google or Oracle) that provides services for TikTok would be in violation of the law and subject to large penalties. Nothing Trump says as president can change that without Congress acting. So it is simply baffling to me that these major companies would be willing to put themselves in serious legal jeopardy with just what amounts to a pinky promise and a wink from Trump.

Arguably DJT consented to the murder of his VP, before cedeing power once the coup failed. So not too far off.

After the precedent around pardons set by his predecessor I'll give him that one.

At least Biden let the process play out before issuing the pardon so the public got to know all the details.

At least Hunter Biden won't be our Ambassador to France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner

Speaking of inscrutable nonsense that antagonizes ally countries: I’m still pissed off about the Canadian lumber tariffs.

My brain struggles to understand how people can see how Trump is operating and think it is "normal".

What has happened to Americans??

I like the movie a lot, but the beginning is a little problematic from a modern viewing iirc. It discusses how the poor and uneducated produce more kids than the higher classes, thus a dumb population after many generations.

Factually true about the correlation between higher standard of living and having fewer kids. However, that exact discussion has been used as a dog whistle against other "undesirable" groups in the past. The movie's beginning implies it would be better if we decide who gets to have kids.

Overall a great movie, but I think that part has aged poorly.

there's an implied (if tongue-in-cheek) pro-eugenics message, since the premise is rooted in dysgenics being a real problem

Since 170M Americans look at TT, I wonder of how much of it was TT propaganda itself.

The amount of propaganda on TT is rather huge, though I won't say any different than US media, just more of it these days oriented to how 'good' China is.

The impetus for this is largely from Congress in both parties. Public support often doesn't align with congressional action and it doesn't stop them.

Vote for your congress members.

Guess you were not part of the popular vote

[dead]

>drumpf bad

Lots of people do care about the propaganda thing. Like, most normie voters I know definitely don't give a crap about the data privacy stuff, but they haven't forgotten about the cold war and are not bought into this "maybe it's fine if the Chinese government can control what all the kids are seeing" narrative.

But it's a big problem that the framing has often been about the data privacy thing.

Engineer who uses TikTok here, I'll let you know once I become a communist.

> how does the chinese spying on them make any difference for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times

I hope our adversaries believe the same one day!

"under the impression" ???

We have proof. There is no guessing here.

Not for sale as much as adjusting to the new reality of feudalism.

> If the national security issues exist, where is the outrage from our elected officials?

The vast majority of security threats does not cause any public outrage. It is dealt with behind the scenes.

I've suspected that they have evidence that China is using the platform for social manipulation, but we're using the same techniques on other countries and possibly domestically and the government doesn't want to make the general public aware of it. Or it could be that they don't have evidence of actual wrongdoing, but feel that the risk is too large to allow it to exist.

Whatever it is, this has gone off the rails and the public is going to need a real explanation if they decide to move forward with the ban.

I highly recommend turning off the autoplay next video option in YouTube. It will enhance your life.

I'm so tired of the Internet turning into the Internet of Faces. I feel like I see faces plastered all over the Internet now, eager to take only ten minutes to explain one minute of information to me.

Some of it is that for sure. But you could also make the counter argument about long form content. It doesn’t take 20 minutes to explain how to make a cake.

I don't think it's any worse than any other form of media (like reading comments on hacker news instead of reading the article)

I remember lots of things! Like Nile burning some random thing. Or that British physicist talking to the British shit poster lady.

I think you might have a point..

An interesting difference between physics and metaphysics is that in physics people tend to think fact checking their claims is important.

Can you provide a ranking of entertainment from most “deep” to most shallow please since you seem to be an expert on what entertainment is OK to consume?

Your facetious comment is essentially correct. It all comes down to culture and parenting. The 'gutted' education system where I live spends 25k per student, which doesn't matter if kids never read a book.

I'd be pulling something out of thin air, but my opinion is that yes so far it has. Facebook and TikTok, and other social media, has served as an amplification mechanism for various things, including rap music.

But at this point, we also have a separate category of things that pretty much on their own are having a negative effect on society. That would be things like TikTok (including Instagram Reels, and Youtube Shorts).

The fact that they're not trying to come up with a new UI paradigm, or discovery mechanism is very telling. They keep focusing on semi-random swipe-directed discovery, and that tells me they're not interested in making the best content available to you as the interested-consumer. They want you wasting time and generating N-counts of redundant ad views/impressions/things before finding that one thing you wanted or might find interesting.

Youtube is probably the best at at-least trying to not force you to swipe (when watching normal videos). But even there, we can see how much people complain about "The Feed" or "The Algorithm". With all of Google's money and effort, they couldn't (or chose not to) find a better way at matching viewers with good content.

Perhaps, but the question was regarding whether this forum brainwashes people.

I do, but this is not contrary to my point.

Give it a few months until somebody rigs an open-source video generation model to generate a "Short" from any frontpage article, and then several "reaction videos" based on the top comments... and maybe a frontend UI that turns the frontpage into an infinite scroll of those Shorts... and bam, HackerReels will be born

Do you truly believe zero brainwashing takes place here?

Out of curiosity, how deeply have you considered the question? And, might that depth not be a function of the norms in the forum?

[dead]

Socializing is indeed of great value to people; not at all spurious. You're helping prove OP's point.

And OP didn't even mention all the small businesses that took off due to TikTok giving them an avenue. This notion that people have to dismiss TikTok as merely mindless dopamine is really just wilful ignorance.

Citizens have a right to assemble and speak to each other. Foreign corporations don't have a right to own the feeds of huge swaths of the population. Hence the rules around newspaper and TV ownership.

Top recipients of campaign donations from Meta:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/recipients?id=D0000335...

Congress members invested in Meta:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/members-invested?id=D0...

And? The history of media companies operating in the US to have US citizens owners is likely much longer than you've been alive, just ask Murdoch about is US citizenship.

You're highlighting a completely different problem that's longstanding and happening regardless if we're talking about enemy states. Be nice if we could solve the Musk/Zuck issues, but I don't suspect we will as we worship the altar of money.

Glad lives are back, I was actually inspecting the traffic using my PiHole from when my GF's US tiktok was browsing and when my European account was attempting to connect. Both of them his a CDN within the US but after that it looks like we had traffic going to different versions. Her's was routing to a tiktokv.us while mine was sending traffic to tiktokv. I'm not sure if this has been in place before or if I'm just realizing now but I believe a split-brain scenario is pretty likely.

But there are American users making and viewing content on that platform.

The physical equivalent would be if China was hosting a TED-talk-like conference where anyone can come and hold a presentation, and after certain kinds of talks became popular congress would tell them that they are no longer allowed to let Americans in, neither to hold presentations nor to listen to them.

Technically that doesn't violate the constitution, but it's not difficult to argue that it does violate the spirit of the constitution

> the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities

Sort of true. Sometimes the constitution just says "persons", which has generally been interpreted to anyone.

But it's not material, because the 1st amendment is a restriction on congress. That's why it starts with "Congress shall make no law...". The argument isn't about if TikTok has rights, it's about if congress is authorized to take this action. They're inter-mixed a bit because if TikTok does have the rights they claim, then congress automatically isn't authorized, but they are separate.

And we have a long history of restricting foreign media ownership

So if a particular book were published by a French company, the government could ban it from being sold in the US? I’m sure that’s not true.

The constitution applies to American users and to non-Americans on American soil. It's not like the cops can execute you for being here on a tourist visa.

But wouldn't you be infringing the rights of the US users if you ban the platform they want to message other US users over? Isn't that indirectly infringing their free speech? Or does the first amendment not protect stuff like this?

You may wish to read FIRE and other organizations amicus brief where they lay out exactly why they think the ban is a free speech issue, legally speaking: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/Amici-Ti...

[dead]

I started having issues when they supported Citizens United

If antitrust laws did not exist then making them would need a constitutional amendment

SCOTUS, as they've done in many recent cases, is artfully skirting the substance of the issue.

How is this ban actually enforced? By fining American companies for serving specific content. That is the First Amendment issue. SCOTUS simply asserting that it's not in order to make their ruling convenient does not actually make it so.

I don't think that is clear at all. Refer to their amicus brief where they explain their reasoning in detail: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/brief-amici-curiae-wr... The gist of it, which you missed, is that they think the ban violates Americans first amendment rights.

Yeah, I can't believe all these people are talking "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" so literally.

Haven't these people heard of Wickard v. Filburn?

And what is their political alignment in this case (and in general)? Considering that banning tiktok got voted with bipartisan support.

Unfortunately so. It didn't use to be that way - the ACLU used to be so principled that they would defend literal Nazis' rights. But they've fallen a long way since then.

For those unaware of ACLU's change over the last 10 or so years, here is an example:

In September 2021, the ACLU wrote a New York Times op-ed defending vaccine requirements, arguing they actually advance civil liberties by protecting the most vulnerable and allowing more people to safely participate in public life. David Cole and Daniel Mach, the authors, wrote that individual liberty isn't absolute when it puts others at risk.

Surely, one can be pro vaccine mandates. But I would not expect a civil liberties organization to hold this position.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-vaccine-man...

>> Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue:

> Honestly these "civil liberties" orgs have lost the plot a long time ago, or are just at "useful idiot" mode

Exactly. When I read "many American civil liberties organizations think," my first thought was "they think a lot of things, that doesn't mean what they think is true or a good idea."

Additionally: they're all essentially lawyers arguing one side of the case. Just listening to them is not going to lead to the correct outcomes (e.g. if courts only listened to prosecutors only, tons of innocent people would go to jail; if they only listened to defense attorneys, tons of guilty people would go free).

This is silly. The EFF and ACLU do amazing and important work every day.

> Not to mention, why would they trust the US to pay tens of billions of dollars after this rigmarole?

Don’t need trust when you have the second most powerful state entity backing you. Corporate America has a complete jammed full history of its interests getting screwed over by foreign entities only for the US government to step in either with military force or some coercive measure resulting in a corrective action. Im sure China is well aware of this playbook and are probably apt to copy it too.

> Not to mention, why would they trust the US to pay tens of billions of dollars

Why would the US government be involved in paying tens of billions ?

The idea is that ByteDance would sell it to Meta, X, etc and would be a private transaction.

Why is Tiktok US no longer worth $10 billion or so?

Why wouldn't American investors still want to buy it?

My guess is that American investors would want to buy it, but want the algorithm, but ByteDance is not willing to sell the algorithm out of fear that sharing it would degrade its competitive position outside the US.

Here's a source that confirms: https://newrepublic.com/post/181327/mitt-romney-congress-ban...

They’re confusing the US TikTok subsidiary with ByteDance parent organization. They were only required to sell the subsidiary.

Ironically this would be enforcing the very same law that exists in China, where all companies have to be majority Chinese owned.

When I worked for an American subsidiary of a Chinese company (Video Games) we were only required to honor censorship requests for Chinese users.

Google "Golden Share CCP ByteDance". CCP has direct influence over how ByteDance is run.

lol no.

This is correct. His power is effectively absolute. Any time his eye focuses on an issue, the issue is resolved to his specification or heads roll and another puppet is appointed to resolve it so.

The CCP doesn’t run a communist nation.

The valuation and acquisition process of the US branch of TikTok would take more than 8 months as outlined by the language of the bill. So it's already forcing them to receive chump change for it. Besides I don't think any company's strategic decisions like this should be solicited by a government. That goes against the free enterprise.

A forced sale will not get near the price as a deal you can walk away from. Two very different markets we are talking about.

It's the pathology of fetishizing contrarianism.

"I am contrarian because daddy Thiel said it's smart" without a hint of irony

Dehumanizing people by calling them "maggots" or other such vermin isn't a good look considering history of the 20th century.

Colloquially "treason" fits many of trump's actions, and the comment did hedge and mention "high crimes and misdemeanors" which trump has certainly been guilty of before (but I'm not convinced he is here)