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

221–230 of 401 posts

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

#221

Post by valuearb »

politician wrote: post #157
supernova87a wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is your legitimately held view (and I agree to some extent with the core idea), at least let's not be naive about it. Don't think that this was a well-reasoned decision with careful justification about the causes, potential, solutions, and impacts on US economics and society. It was a guy asking "what can we do to create some leverage over this adversary I don't like? (and was just told about yesterday)" Don'…

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

They often do. Trumps own supreme court ruled that this year.

“ Did Trump lawfully repeal the Obama-era order that shielded young immigrants who were brought to this country as children?

No, the court said in a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts. He said that while the president had the legal authority to revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, his administration failed to give a reasoned explanation for ending a policy that encouraged about 700,000 immigrants to register with the government to obtain work permits and avoid deportation. ”

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

#222

Post by propogandist »

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.

to some degree? No, they are completely controlled by China.

> "WeChatApp spies on the content that all users send to each other, including Americans. The results are fed into their censorship of Chinese users" [1]

-

Key findings rom the Citizen lab research report, which is quite comprehensive [2]:

> Documents and images transmitted entirely among non-China-registered accounts undergo content surveillance wherein these files are analyzed for content that is politically sensitive in China.

>Upon analysis, files deemed politically sensitive are used to invisibly train and build up WeChat’s Chinese political censorship system.

[1] https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1258391908319137797

[2] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/

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

#224

Post by solaarphunk »

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…

No. I need it to conduct business, and that's more important to me than posting or discussing controversial topics. People in China literally do not use email, so this is the only effective method to get things done (which I'm totally ok with!). This ban would be an absolute disaster for me, given that my entire rolodex are WeChat contacts, not email addresses.

I also feel for my friends who have family in China, and want to stay connected with them through a medium that is widely adopted.

There is a cultural standard that is just different in China when it comes to free speech, and it's hard for most people in the US to accept that.

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

#225

Post by dontcarethrow2 »

annexrichmond wrote: post #142
yeahrightok wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I agree, these are problems. But at least in the US we can continue to pass legislation as we learn more about how to properly regulate these platforms It is much easier to enforce laws on a US-based company than a foreign one.

In the US we pass legislation in favor of these big corps to continue to grow, but its all good since they are US companies, they should decide our laws. What a joke. We don't control the policy makers, they are owned by your big corp. Yeah, super easy. I'd rather the state decide laws and not your entitled CEO. Delusional democracy.

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

#226

Post by zepto »

derex wrote: post #204
zepto wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may technically not have a veto within the company, but that’s not really that relevant. 1. The CCP has advanced access to the company’s plans. 2. The representative can always say something like, “this would meet with disapproval by the party”. It’s not a formal veto, but it is an implied threat.

Can you link reports on this or the source where you obtained this information? In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits

This seems like a ‘citation needed’ kind of dismissal.

These are obvious consequences of being required to have a CCP board member.

The government having a board member is by definition a form of government control.

These are not ‘non-obvious’ claims and as such they don’t need citations.

If you want to argue that somehow these conclusions aren’t reasonable, by all means do so. But no citation is needed.

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

#227

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

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…

My parents were in high school while segregation still existed. There's no question they got opportunities many black americans the same age did not, which absolutely had a direct and significant impact on my life.

Redlining remained legal into the 70s, and was continued with the thinnest of fig leafs concealing it into the 90s. Covert discrimination in loan and rental applications continues to this day.

Many studies repeated even today continue to confirm that racial discrimination in job applications remains a very real thing.

Wealth is strongly generational, and we aren't even 1 generation away from dramatic and legalized inequalities.

Your last paragraph is the most telling. Were black and native americans somehow not adults before today? Pools of funds? Have you ever driven through a reservation that wasn't a casino? The many underinvested urban areas that remain from the era of white flight and redlining?

We see you and what you are thinking here clearly. The world is moving on from such bigotry, as should you.

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

#228

Post by ss125 »

My guess for the "real reason" Trump is after these companies: the demographics of their users skews younger and more liberal, and they're using these platforms for political organization. Specifically, my guess is that it's retaliation for the tanking of the Trump rally in Tulsa [0].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-...

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

#229

Post by monocasa »

wvenable wrote: post #205
linkjuice4all wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights As a non-American, my question is why does WeChat have first amendment rights? It's not an American company.

Yes. The supreme court has found consistently that pretty much anywhere the constitution says "people", it refers to all people regardless of citizenship, given that it also calls out "citizens" in many places.

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

#230

Post by CalChris »

politician wrote: post #98
srtjstjsj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.

The Executive Branch of the USA has always held the power to direct the nation’s relationships with foreign powers. If you feel that that’s autocratic, then your beef is with the folks back in 1776.

The Constitution says the Senate has confirmation powers for Ambassadors (consider Weld), it has consent on treaties and Congress declares war.
Post reply on HN