191–200 of 306 posts
It seems like WeChat access is pretty hard to get in the US currently if you don't know anyone that uses it. I registered an account to try and get support for my Ender 3D printer(nightmare). After a few fields the app asked me to have my sponsor enter my number and I wasn't able to progress further so I uninstalled.
Wait what? You need a "sponsor" to use WeChat?
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…
We see another side effect of app stores: gives governments easy leverage to tell you what you can do with your computer.
Bingo. Wonder how all the Apple defenders like John Gruber are gonna spin this one. App Stores were always a mistake. Walled gardens were always a mistake. The people arguing that they were good because of security or whatever were arguing on behalf of a red herring. It's security theater. iOS has had, what, like 6 critical vulnerabilities in the past 5 years? What was the point? Quite literally only to limit what yo…
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?
H1Bs and others (at least from China) are banned at a minimum until January 2021.
Just 3 months after TikTok users embarrassed Trump at his Tulsa rally, where he left visibly upset. He's called for the repeal of section 230 because of "tech bias". He attacks news outlets for “biassed” reporting. He attacks whistle blowers. He attacks people that supported him and later changed their minds (mattis, kelly, etc). He attacks Amazon for owning Washington Post. He attacks anyone that opposes him. I'm su…
> I'm surprised people are taking this ban at face value. Yeah, it's astounding how quickly these discussions focused in on "well, what are the pros and cons of banning an app? When is an app a national security issue? What is an appropriate trade retaliation?" and completely missed the fact that - hey, the US government is, for the first time, using the Commerce department to dictate what code you can execute on you…
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…
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-we...
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.
HN is usually in support for government interventions against big cos. We are told that the government is expressing the will of the people. Why should we encourage Apple and Google to counter the will of the people in this case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PSA: If you have an Android phone, you can download WeChat directly from wechat.com. You don't need to go through the Google Play store because your OS supports your freedom to some degree to install whatever you want on hardware that you OWN. If you have an iPhone, sorry that your phone company's CEO is pretty much a dictator and is complicit in restricting the freedom of Americans.
You can side load on iOS - quit spreading misinformation
Or well, I looked it up and this is 1 way: https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sidel...
It's a hacky workaround that needs "maintenance" every 7 days, but I guess you can call it "You can side load on iOS"
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 banne…
We see another side effect of app stores: gives governments easy leverage to tell you what you can do with your computer.
What if WeChat was a traditional installer (.msi, .app, .exe, .run) that you download from some sever and which is mirrored all over the place?
Does the same authority apply? Can the government say "it's illegal to have this binary executable?"
Or is this only possible because there's one central repository for these platforms, and the government can simply compel the platform (legal and ethical questions aside) to remove them?
