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

Post by ReptileMan » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

linkjuice4all wrote: post #197

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…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

MilnerRoute wrote: post #149

MilnerRoute wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This has been one of my favorite thought experiments in a while. It seems like there's inevitably going to be a need for some kind of content moderation -- but maybe that could be handled by local librarians, local newspapers. (At least that's a solution that actually scales.)

Post by abc-xyz » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #185

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven’t they been doing that already? At least requiring companies to use data centers in country so they can siphon/spy on the data? Is that any less nefarious than a forced sale in order to operate in the country? I’d argue at least it’s more explicit (to sell).

Requiring data centers in the country is something Americans and all nations desire. How is that an argument in your mind? China came into the US and is operating under the rules, while the US is forcing TikTok to sell or die. This is the US seizing TikTok. What US firm has China seized? It would be shocking if in the next round of escalations, China doesn’t respond in a way which sufficiently addresses the magnitude…

Post by sudosysgen » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

kolanos wrote: post #120

quicklime wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. A better analogy would be if the US had lost the revolutionary war, and was subjected to a century or more of British mercantilism, which they were only now starting to recover from.

They were subjected to 170 years of mercantilism prior to the American Revolution. Any American ship that dared trade with any power other than the British Empire was deemed a "pirate" and was fired upon by cannon.

Post by mantap » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

tatrajim wrote: post #123

Honest question for Chinese users of WeChat: have you ever thought twice about WeChat posts and communications, whether they'll be deemed "acceptable" to censors? Everyone I know self-censors nearly constantly, if unconsciously. A good example: in a discussion of this case I was reading today in Chinese the author ironically noted that he couldn't summarize the US government's position because in a large WeChat group…