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

Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 401 posts

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#191

Post by Orou »

kolanos wrote: post #182
Orou wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is largely what prompted the American Revolution The American Revolution was much more about representation and the rights that British Parliament held (or, from the American perspective, didn't hold) over the colonies. The primary effect of mercantilism is exclusive trading agreements with the ruling empire, which was not being argued against by the colonials. It even says as much in the paragraph you linked:…

You're quoting an attempt in 1761 to resolve this economic dispute with King George by legal means. The American colonies, on their own, were in no position to counter the mercantile system. They would need the support of another Empire for that. But to counter your claim that mercantilism wasn't the inspiration for the American Revolution, I recommend reading up on the "Sons of Liberty" movement that rose up after t…

I'm familiar with the Stamp Act - which I think reinforces my point because it was about direct taxation on the colonies. Even indirect taxation, e.g. on paper, tea, and glass through the Townshend Acts led to violent confrontation, infamously the Boston Massacre.

The point I am making is that the primary instigator for the war was not "we can't legally trade with the Dutch/French/whomever", which is the monopolistic cornerstone of mercantilism. I'm curious if you consider taxation to be a mercantilist policy.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#192

Post by valuearb »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #119
valuearb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is the most accurate summation of the ban I’ve read yet.

Likely for the speculative accusations in the second half.

Tik Tok wasn't on Trumps radar until Tik Tok users trolled his Oklahoma event. His ban is clearly politically motivated.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#193

Post by djsumdog »

yeahrightok wrote: post #136
annexrichmond wrote: post #102

I think it's easy to say the ban doesn't make sense when it is perhaps a preventative measure. We have seen social networks take over others many times in terms of popularity. If TikTok and WeChat's usage becomes more widespread in the voting population of the US, they would have a lot of influence by controlling what kind of content its users sees; e.g., FB has been criticized many times for this, namely performing…

"The difference between TikTok and WeChat and FB/Google/Twitter is obvious: the former are to some degree controlled by China and the latter are private entities." I think that difference is not that wide as people believe. Throwing money into advertising on any platform will get you close or beyond ideological subversion or active measures. All you have to do is look at the radicalization and the polarization of lef…

With chat programs, the concern is over monitoring. The US can issue warrants to get your chat records from Messenger/Hangouts. Those warrants are obtained a bit too easily due to FISA/Security Letters, but that's another due process issue/policy issue. With Chinese companies, they don't even need the illusion of warrants or due process.

FB/Twitter/Tiktok are different because they control WHAT you see. None of them show things chronologically. Their algorithms show things that are popular, and the weights they use are trade secrets. Being able to influence ideas takes classic advertising, or even targeted advertising, to an entirely new level. It has an entirely different set of legal and ethical challenges.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#194

Post by valuearb »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #65
valuearb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments is the NSA should monitor them, just as it does us?

Will the NSA make HK protesters disappear? There’s great alternatives to wechat that are secure by design, rather than spy-by-design, such as telegram or signal.

That should be for the users to decide. My point is whatever they choose is likely going to be government monitored.

And the US has done hundred of renditions without trial, so while far from the scale of China, US spy agencies still do some awful things.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#195

Post by djsumdog »

MilnerRoute wrote: post #148
annexrichmond wrote: post #102

I think it's easy to say the ban doesn't make sense when it is perhaps a preventative measure. We have seen social networks take over others many times in terms of popularity. If TikTok and WeChat's usage becomes more widespread in the voting population of the US, they would have a lot of influence by controlling what kind of content its users sees; e.g., FB has been criticized many times for this, namely performing…

Maybe the U.S. should fund its own social network? In the 1960s it created a government-funded television network to offer alternative programming. But television is an old medium, and less of a source of information today -- partly because it's been supplanted by social media.

Join the Fediverse! Join a Mastodon, Pleroma or MissKey instance, or set on up. Follow some random people and start talking. It's like 90s chat rooms all over again!

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#196

Post by fishywang »

gruez wrote: post #38
wyxuan wrote: post #8

Good. I didn't think the WeChat ban made much sense to begin with. Sidenote, I've noticed more and more people joining Telegram to evade a potential WeChat ban. I wonder if they're going to stay on Telegram.

>Sidenote, I've noticed more and more people joining Telegram to evade a potential WeChat ban. I wonder if they're going to stay on Telegram. Isn't the whole point of using wechat is its large chinese userbase? AFAIK telegram is banned in china, so I'm not sure why that'd be the logical choice.

Telegram cannot replace the use case of Chinese living in the US keep contact with their family in China (because Telegram is blocked in China, as you said), but it could replace the use case of Chinese living in the US contact each other.

I hate wechat for its user experience, when my mom need to say something to me she usually send wechat message to my wife, because I check my wechat for, maybe, once per week. But a lot of Chinese living in the US seem to not mind its user experience, and like to use wechat as the way of contact each other. I think one of the reason might be that in the US there's not one dominate IM app that everyone is using, so wechat is like the next best thing that at lease every Chinese is using. Now a lot of Chinese also start to use Telegram there's hope (but I won't hold my breath for it).

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#197

Post by linkjuice4all »

annexrichmond wrote: post #102

I think it's easy to say the ban doesn't make sense when it is perhaps a preventative measure. We have seen social networks take over others many times in terms of popularity. If TikTok and WeChat's usage becomes more widespread in the voting population of the US, they would have a lot of influence by controlling what kind of content its users sees; e.g., FB has been criticized many times for this, namely performing…

I don't know if you get to have it both ways without trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights as well as those of their users unless you pass data privacy laws for US citizens/persons (which might have first amendment implications anyway) and deal with WeChat through whatever mechanisms this newly-passed (and yet-to-be created) privacy law contains.

So either WeChat, Facebook, and whoever can facilitate protected speech among their users (in this case you're protecting the users specifically) or the various platforms are treated as publishers which still wouldn't allow the US government to prevent or compel speech (protecting the organization).

It's possible they can get away with banning the payment portions of the app but the outright ban appears to be prior restraint of free speech by the government.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#198

Post by augustt »

controversy wrote: post #178
ipsocannibal wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that China has been able to redress the power embalance. The decendents of slaves and indigenous Americans have not.

Please. At this point, both blacks and Indians are able to take various Federal and State monies to be the best they can be. The Indians have relative sovereignty. They could take their federal and casino monies and plow them into an R&D bonanza. Blacks in the US have a golden ticket to pretty much any institution they wish to attend. Both have had trillions of US dollars plowed into their communities over the year v…

Yeah honestly what more could these people want - it's not like people are calling them Indians to this day or suggesting they can't think freely enough to "escape" the Democratic "plantation". Read some books not written by Candace Owens you tool.

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#199

Post by lmg643 »

MilnerRoute wrote: post #148
annexrichmond wrote: post #102

I think it's easy to say the ban doesn't make sense when it is perhaps a preventative measure. We have seen social networks take over others many times in terms of popularity. If TikTok and WeChat's usage becomes more widespread in the voting population of the US, they would have a lot of influence by controlling what kind of content its users sees; e.g., FB has been criticized many times for this, namely performing…

Maybe the U.S. should fund its own social network? In the 1960s it created a government-funded television network to offer alternative programming. But television is an old medium, and less of a source of information today -- partly because it's been supplanted by social media.

yes...and they could call it LifeLog!

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

Re: Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns

#200

Post by politician »

supernova87a wrote: post #171
politician wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The powers delegated to the Executive don’t generally require a good explanation. “Principles” are handled at the ballot box.

If that's what you think, you should really learn more about government. I don't think you have a clue. Many, many powers falling under executive branch (and agencies') regulatory authority, which Congress does not go into N-th level detail about how to implement, have to go through significant public and internal review, and have good explanation . If you're unfamiliar with this, you should read: https://fas.org/sgp…

We are talking about two different things. Legislation is different from the inherent powers delegated by the Constitution. The Executive certainly can act in many ways without explaining itself to and obtaining authorization from Congress.

It seems reasonable to assume that you’re familiar with this concept, so I’ll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

Post reply on HN