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

231–240 of 401 posts

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

#231

Post by onepointsixC »

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…

They already banned US companies by the dozens. What next, force American companies to do joint ventures which the Chines parters hold a majority share? Oh that's right China has already done that.

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

#232

Post by dingaling »

wombatmobile wrote: post #206
tatrajim wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! By that standard surely Korea can complain endlessly about China and Yuan Shikai lording it over their kingdom in the 1880s, and the Czechs can cry over their subjugation for centuries by Austria-Hungary, etc. etc. In 1949 Mao Zedong famously declared "China has stood up." Apparently though he meant, "We're such a weak peop…

> How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! 160 years in the past? The Chinese reparations, totalling $US 61 billion is today's dollar equivalents, were only completed in 1940. Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war. But I wouldn't characterise Chinese trade policy as victimhood. Chinese entrepreneurs don't rely on…

> Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war.

That was under the Kuomintang regime, who fled to Taiwan in 1949

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

#233

Post by thaumasiotes »

propogandist wrote: post #222
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 researc…

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

This is a matter of perspective.

Do you think the question is "if the CCP tells Tencent to do something, will they do it?", or "does Tencent do anything the CCP doesn't tell it to do?"?

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

#234

Post by eeZah7Ux »

Causality1 wrote: post #20
dvduval wrote: post #10

I have been studying Chinese for 7 years. Many of my Chinese friends live in Los Angeles and WeChat is central in their life... Getting a job, taking orders, doing all kinds of business, paying for things. They don't know the phone numbers of their friends. Many don't speak English or their English is not very good. If it is completely cut off they will still find ways to communicate but arguably it will be more like…

Those are valid concerns. I also think the opposite side of that coin is worth considering. That is to say, should we allow WeChat to gain an even greater foothold on American soil or should we minimize total damage by cutting it off now instead of later? As for me, I believe allowing WeChat to become anything like the structural institution it is in China in any part of the US would be a mistake. Imagine if Google w…

> Imagine if Google was as controlled by and as much of a cheerleader for the US government as WeChat is for the Chinese, and the kind of threat that would pose to European sovereignty.

Imagine that! Imagine if some US agency had a global dragnet surveillance network!

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

#235

Post by thaumasiotes »

monocasa wrote: post #229
wvenable wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> why does WeChat have first amendment rights?

> Yes.

We might also observe that the only mention of "people" in the first amendment gives them the rights to assemble and to petition the government.

Freedoms of speech and the press are phrased as restrictions on Congress, not as rights given to anyone (and this is probably the main justification for extending first amendment rights to foreigners, which appears to be a popular but not universal viewpoint).

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

#236

Post by skarz »

dvduval wrote: post #10

I have been studying Chinese for 7 years. Many of my Chinese friends live in Los Angeles and WeChat is central in their life... Getting a job, taking orders, doing all kinds of business, paying for things. They don't know the phone numbers of their friends. Many don't speak English or their English is not very good. If it is completely cut off they will still find ways to communicate but arguably it will be more like…

Are you kidding? Their excuse for not being able to perform any normal civilized function would be because WeChat got banned? That's pathetic.

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

#237

Post by justanotheranon »

monocasa wrote: post #229
wvenable wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Julian Assange's right to Free Speech has been denied.

of Free Speech is arbitrarily granted, then it's not free speech, and that violates Prior Restraint, at least, if the Courts are not also arbitrarily deciding who's free speech deserves to be protected.

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

#238

Post by skarz »

aphextron wrote: post #42

From the beginning of this I never understood how there could be any legal basis whatsoever for the ban. Apparently that's because there was none.

So a federal judge blocks something based on their opinion/interpretation and you interpret that as something having "no legal basis whatsoever"? You look at life through an interesting lens...

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

#239

Post by justanotheranon »

sudosysgen wrote: post #210
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…

You have to be very wary of what defectors say, they often just make stuff up. Also, as Snowden has shown us, the line between private and state control is very, very thin.

Nosenko was a famous defector who confused CIA and James Jesus Angleton for years whether he was "bona fide" or a double agent sent to spread disinfo as a fake defector. the number of fake Soviet defectors was so enormous that it made CIA doubt the credibility of many legit defectors, which was a great counter intel strategy on the KGB's part.

Trust, but verify.

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

#240

Post by djsumdog »

CydeWeys wrote: post #53
aphextron wrote: post #42

From the beginning of this I never understood how there could be any legal basis whatsoever for the ban. Apparently that's because there was none.

Like so many other attempted Trump executive actions, it really needs to be passed by Congress. Trump doesn't even have anyone competent in the White House telling him what he can and can't do.

Well this is the situation we're in because everyone since Bush abused executive orders. Obama's DACA order is a great example. It grants "Equitable Entitlements," which are pretty much Unalienable Rights.

Imagine if a president after Lincoln decided that they were going to reverse the Emancipation Proclamation. Would they be in authority to do so? Probably. But you're taking away rights at that point. DACA promised a bunch of kids with, "Hey, give us your names and addresses and we promise not to ever deport you," without a clear path to residence/citizenship for their family members.

It's a Pandora's Box that's been abused by both parties and it's going to come back to bite everyone at some point.

Post reply on HN