Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#341

Post by Al-Khwarizmi » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

pell wrote: post #257

justinzollars wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has been able to maintain its civilization state and it has a continuous history.

You commented this twice already as some sort of universal truth. But in fact the region known as modern-day China had one major conflict after another like they occurred in any other region in the globe. Also what does it mean to "maintain" civilization when at least 45 million people died under Mao due to famine, overwork and state violence? Is putting Uighurs in concentration camps "maintaining" civilization?

> Also what does it mean to "maintain" civilization when at least 45 million people died under Mao due to famine, overwork and state violence? Is putting Uighurs in concentration camps "maintaining" civilization?

Yes?

I mean, the word "civilization" just makes reference to a complex society with certain societal and governmental structures. A civilization can be peaceful but it can also be brutal. Many (if not all) historical civilizations started wars, took slaves, forced people to adopt certain religions or customs, or made outright genocides, and that doesn't make them less of a civilization.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#342

Post by Barrin92 » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #288

baddox wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's always struck me as unfair that Western social media companies are banned in China, while Chinese ones have been able to compete Worldwide. It’s weird to point out this double standard but then apparently take the side of both countries banning foreign media companies.

Why give China access to our domestic market when they refuse to give us access theirs? What do you propose then?

because not giving someone access to your market is stupid, in particular if you're not a developing country because there's nothing to be gained from protectionism, other than enabling the increasingly authoritarian tnedencies of the American government against its own citizens.

Why does something need to be proposed at all, is the US threatened by zoomers doing funny dances on a smartphone app?

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#343

Post by zepearl » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:32 AM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #245

tchaffee wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we live in a relatively free country where the government doesn't choose what software we buy or use.

This is sort of similar to tarrifs no? The government selectively (through lobbyists and deals) picks which types of things are taxed (sometimes to unprofitability). Other things are banned entirely. Not saying Kinder Eggs would be missed as much as Tik Tok, but this is historically something the government does.

I think that you're still one level more abstract than what is happening here.

Tariffs are set for classes/types of goods/materials/etc... and Kinder Eggs were banned because they didn't comply to a regulation (small dangerous foreign objects contained in the product - maybe other similar products had to be banned as well but those ones didn't reach the headlines).

In this case the decision applies to a very specific company/product and that decision is not based on a rule/regulation/etc..., I think => on one hand it doesn't have any impact on other similar companies/products, on the other hand it scares me that a single person is able to enforce on-the-fly these kind of decisions.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#344

Post by pupdogg » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:33 AM UTC

kjksf wrote: post #322

chaostheory wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why give China access to our domestic market when they refuse to give us access theirs? What do you propose then?

The issue here is that it's a president arbitrarily destroying a company. If the Congress (the actual body meant to crate laws) decides to create a reasoned, comprehensive law to level the playing field with Chinese companies, then they should do it. What shouldn't happen is this kind of impulsive decision making that arguably abuses the emergency powers of the presidency to block an app that allows people to film th…

I disagree. The definition of "arbitrarily" states: "on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". I think the President's decision is based on reason and is not a random choice or a personal whim as much as it might seem to some. Now, why is that?

Well, it became public yesterday that Microsoft was in talks with TikTok to acquire them. Though every business decision by big players like Microsoft may seem like a calculated risk, no one can predict the future. In this scenario, that risk is clearly foreign state infiltration. Keep in mind, we're in 2020 and morse code is no longer a thing. Due to the uncertain nature of what this deal might bright about, the President reasoned that it was appropriate from him to take this executive action to protect national security interests. I do believe that if Microsoft can sell the government on mitigating or completely removing any risk exposure that this deal might bring, that the ban will be lifted. Again, this is just my opinion.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#345

Post by weiming » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:34 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #136

This will be a huge gift horse to Zuckerberg/Facebook and I have a sneaking suspicion it's a project of Peter Thiel. There are a lot of remedies that could be taken if we suspect TikTok of malfeasance, but a straight up ban? I smell fish.

"Peter Thiel sells most of remaining Facebook stake (2017)"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thie...

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#346

Post by ethanbond » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC

kjksf wrote: post #322

chaostheory wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why give China access to our domestic market when they refuse to give us access theirs? What do you propose then?

The issue here is that it's a president arbitrarily destroying a company. If the Congress (the actual body meant to crate laws) decides to create a reasoned, comprehensive law to level the playing field with Chinese companies, then they should do it. What shouldn't happen is this kind of impulsive decision making that arguably abuses the emergency powers of the presidency to block an app that allows people to film th…

> If you claim that this app is a national security threat then any app is.

How so? Not every app is 1. Owned and controlled by an adversarial state, 2. In the hands of every American youth, and 3. Providing opaquely generated/sorted content.

So explain how every app is an equivalent security threat.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#347

Post by Al-Khwarizmi » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #106

Not even getting into the CCP ties, it's always struck me as unfair that Western social media companies are banned in China, while Chinese ones have been able to compete Worldwide. In a way this gives Chinese apps an immediate advantage (as some are indirectly calling out in this comment section). If you want to reach out to someone in China, you have to use a Chinese company's app. Since social media is mostly a win…

I agree it's unfair, but when you defend something for moral reasons or claim to have a moral high ground, you should stick with it even if it's unfair, right?

The West has always said that the Chinese bans to Western social media and tech companies were authoritarian and antidemocratic. How is this less so?

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#348

Post by tikwidd » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:36 AM UTC

pldr1234 wrote: post #279

envy2 wrote: post #271

This is a terrible development and precedent. Whatever you think of the CCP and the Chinese approach to censorship and tech, building our own 'Great Firewall' and banning foreign apps/services we don't like is not the answer. It just legitimises the Chinese approach and sends us further down the road to a fragmented rather than open internet.

Unless there's a third path, there really is no choice but to act in kind.

The third path is to not ban anything.

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#349

Post by peteretep » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

justinzollars wrote: post #227

khuey wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stonehenge is also between 4 and 5 thousand years old but it's not going to tell you anything about the mystical traditions of the people of the British Isles.

The difference between the West and China is that China has been able to maintain its civilization state and it has a continuous history. The West's history is discontinuous

> China has been able to maintain its civilization state and it has a continuous history

I'm baffled by what this means. Could you compare it to the United Kingdom for me? Are you conflating written history with continuous history?

Re: Trump says he will ban TikTok through executive action

#350

Post by dmix » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 10:39 AM UTC

JanSt wrote: post #323

Twisell wrote: post #293

Not US citizen here. Can someone explain how in a democracy the chief executive can singlehandedly decide to ban a media only a few month before elections? I can't make any sense of that, it seems wrong at so many levels...

It‘s a question of distribution power. If the power is granted to the executive branch, they can do it. It‘s part of decisions on their own country. I consider it much more questionable to exert power over allied countries to stop extraterritorial infrastructure projects (i.e. Nordstream 2), because the US wants to sell fracking gas to europe. I‘m sure that using such power will lead to losing it long-term and former…

> It‘s a question of distribution power. If the power is granted to the executive branch, they can do it.

Any notably the power the executive branch holds, which the US classically prided themselves on being strictly limited in scope - as directly opposed to the monarchies the founding fathers resent, has exploded in power since 9/11 under Bush, then later even more so under Obama.

People had been critiquing the power grabs at the time for this exact reasons, knowing that they won't just be used to fight 'terrorism', which was always the pretext.

The fact almost every controversial thing Trump has done outside of congress has been using national security powers is not surprising. That authority was handed to them long ago and was always open to abuse.

The very broad national security laws in the US are the root source of the centralization of power. Simply changing who the president won't stop this train either. A lot of other country's presidents/prime ministers gained tons of power under the guise of counter-terrorism - including Canada and the UK.