Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 306 posts

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#171

Post by Udik »

ultrarunner wrote: post #155
zaksoup wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come the argument "you can just buy an android phone" doesn't apply to iOS users in the same way "you can just sideload an APK" does to Google play store users? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious about how people think of these distinctions.

Personally, it's a bit like if I purchased a Mercedes but found that I could only drive it on certain pre-approved roads, subject to varying partnerships and licensing agreements. Someone telling me, "you can just buy a scooter" seems predicated on the assertion that they both belong in the same category of "means of transportation," but ignores the fact that they operate very differently in several ways. It also ign…

The message you're replying to argues that a car that refuses to go on certain roads is exactly equivalent to a car that does, because its owners are free to buy the other car. This is a complete non-sequitur, and I am surprised someone is debating it seriously.

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#172

Post by martin__ »

bmitc wrote: post #164

China bans WhatsApp. The U.S. bans WeChat. Great, no I have no official app besides good old text and phone to communicate with my fiancée who is still banned from reentering the U.S. despite still having a job here. The U.S. has simply become an authoritarian state of a different color. My fiancée is prevented from returning and we are prevented from using our primary communication method simply because the so-calle…

I thought the border restriction was just about having been in China in the last 14 days. Couldn't she get back into the US if she went to a different country first for 14 days?

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#173

Post by SoylentYellow »

hirundo wrote: post #17

Banning a speech app should trigger strict judicial scrutiny for first amendment infringement in the same way that banning a newspaper would: 1. Is it necessary to a "compelling state interest"? Maybe they are CCP surveillance apps, but that needs be shown in court, not merely asserted. 2. Is it "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose? This seems narrowly tailored to two apps. 3. Does it use the "lea…

I am focusing on WeChat only with this comment.

It is not narrowly tailored or least restrictive. Narrowly tailored means the law must be precisely written to minimize the 1st Amendment impact. In this case, this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China. There is no practical alternative to WeChat as all other similar apps are banned in China, so this order is extremely restrictive.

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#174

Post by oscargrouch »

akersten wrote: post #110

When will Apple and Google come out and say "no" to this? What is the legislative mechanism that gives the Dept of Commerce control over what code (speech) is transmitted on their app platform? Calling it a "transaction" is a stretch - using that logic, Department of Commerce could ban any online download they wanted. That's clearly not a good outcome, and not an interpretation we as technologists should accept.

I think this would be better rephrased as: "When will @akersten(me) come out and say "no" to this?"

The app stores are on your phone, the apps you should install on your property should be your decision and no government or company should have any say on this.

Its a matter of right, its a matter of freedom, and we should not just have the sad option to choose the one who we will abdicate our freedom for.

We should not fall for this false dichotomy of choice where by picking any of them, we loose our freedoms anyway, only having the freedom to choose who will pick for us.

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#175

Post by Gustomaximus »

bleepblorp wrote: post #51
tstrimple wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TikTok kids are mean to Trump.

It's interesting that this explanation gets aggressively downvoted every time it is posted. It's a narrative that someone seems to want to bury. It is the explanation that best fits the facts, given that talk of banning TikTok didn't gain traction until after Trump's indoor rally turned up empty. I suspect the empty rally was the tipping point that gave those who wanted to get rid of TikTok for competitive reasons en…

I gave it a down vote as it was presented as a glib one liner. If they presented it with reasonable logic and discussion I wouldn't have.

At least for me it was the delivery combined with the HN environment were I hope we can keep this forum based around value-add conversation and not hivemind one liners, regardless of their correctness.

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#178

Post by dragonwriter »

dahfizz wrote: post #125
CWuestefeld wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems narrowly tailored to two apps. Doesn't that make it a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.

>is an act of a legislature Seems pretty clear that this does not apply to actions of the commerce department because they are not a legislature. They are not finding China / the apps guilty of a crime or punishing them for that crime. Even if Congress issued this ban, Congress has the explicit right to regulate commerce in the constitution. Trade embargo and sanctions are a very well established power of the governm…

> Seems pretty clear that this does not apply to actions of the commerce department because they are not a legislature

Right. The executive declaring guilt and imposing criminal punishment would just be a violation of the 5th Amendment due process clause. But this isn't declaring guilt and imposing punishment, it's, superficially at leaat, making a finding delegated to the President by Congress under law designed to regulate foreign trade for the purpose of protecting national security.

Whether it comports with the detailed requirements of the authorizing law, whether the law as a whole or this specific action citing it violate the Constitution, and a number of other things may be reasonable questions, but this whole “bill of attainder” thing isn't on a number of levels.

Re: US bans WeChat, TikTok from app stores, threatens shutdowns

#180

Post by dragonwriter »

ardy42 wrote: post #146
dahfizz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is an act of a legislature Seems pretty clear that this does not apply to actions of the commerce department because they are not a legislature. They are not finding China / the apps guilty of a crime or punishing them for that crime. Even if Congress issued this ban, Congress has the explicit right to regulate commerce in the constitution. Trade embargo and sanctions are a very well established power of the governm…

Also this kind of action may intersect with constitutional foreign policy powers, which I think are far less familiar to regular people than other constitutional concepts from the Bill of Rights, etc.

The Bill of Rights limits Constitutional foreign policy powers.
Post reply on HN