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

291–300 of 401 posts

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

#291

Post by vkou »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #290

"The U.S. has claimed that WeChat is a threat because its owner , Tencent Holdings Ltd., is intertwined with the Chinese Communist Party, which can use the app to disseminate propaganda, track users, and steal their private and proprietary data. It's a similar argument that the administration has used to target the TikTok app, while also forcing a sale of that app's U.S. operations." Why does the issue have to be fra…

> Why does the issue have to be framed as being with the "owner" instead of the "conduct".

Because focusing on the owner lets us shoehorn this into a nationalistic us versus them argument.

Focusing on the conduct will turn it into a "The people" versus "Powerful media magnates".

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

#292

Post by roywiggins »

valuearb wrote: post #221
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.

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…

And that was just because the Trump administration didn't manage to satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which just requires the executive to provide a reason.

The standard of review for free speech cases are way, way higher than the APA. The APA just means the executive can't blatantly lie about why it did enacted some regulation, and has to come up with a facially valid reason. The standard under the 1st Amendment requires a good reason.

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

#293

Post by roywiggins »

politician wrote: post #200
supernova87a wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Executive agencies have to obey the Administrative Procedures Act which is not a high bar and yet the current administration doesn't always manage to clear it; it has had several policies turned back by SCOTUS for not being able to come up with a facially valid reason.

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

#294

Post by _23sd »

politician wrote: post #200
supernova87a wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, the executive has constitutional powers, but the powers used in this WeChat ban come from the National Emergency act and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, not the constitution. So I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that you’re talking about constitutional powers, which are not at issue here. Powers created by legislation are constrained by the statutes themselves and Administrative Procedure Act requirements.

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

#295

Post by aphextron »

djsumdog wrote: post #240
CydeWeys wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

The emancipation proclamation was in no way a binding document. It was simply a "proclamation" of the stated position of the executive branch regarding slavery during Lincoln's administration, that they would cease to recognize its' legitimacy as law. The 13th amendment, (an act of congress which created a new law), legally freed the slaves. DACA is a very similar situation. An executive may choose which laws to prioritize for enforcement, and in this case that's exactly what Obama did. The president cannot, however, enforce a law that does not exist or that he wishes existed, which Trump is attempting to here.

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

#296

Post by seanmcdirmid »

roywiggins wrote: post #289
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not listed on the Chinese App Store, but you can install it easily by switching your region to the USA, installing Facebook, and then switching your region back to China, without losing apps from either region. (I know this because I owned an iPhone while living in China) Much easier than having to bother with a VPN, and many Chinese people are already used to jumping through such hoops.

China puts up with it for whatever reason, but the US doesn't have to. The US can just as easily order Apple and Google to remove it from every region of every app store.

They can’t actually do that. There are good reasons apples Chinese App Store is run by their Chinese subsidiary. That would be like China ordering Apple to remove Facebook from their American App Store.

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

#297

Post by djsumdog »

abc-xyz wrote: post #242
djsumdog wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tencent/WeChat also control what you see in your feeds. I often notice when I share information/pictures related to Hong Kong/Xinjiang then my posts doesn’t always appear in my friends feeds (because the image hash/phrase cause the post to be shadowbanned). Their approach is quite evil because it will make you think people might not like your post (since they don’t “like” it) when in fact they simply can’t see it. To…

Interesting. For Facebook/Twitter, if you don't interact and only post occasionally, few people will see your posts (which the opposite of someone in real life who rarely talks; when they do, people tend to listen). I wrote a post about it:

https://battlepenguin.com/tech/facebook-and-the-silent-bob-e...

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

#298

Post by djsumdog »

aphextron wrote: post #295
djsumdog wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The emancipation proclamation was in no way a binding document. It was simply a "proclamation" of the stated position of the executive branch regarding slavery during Lincoln's administration, that they would cease to…

The emancipation proclamation was absolutely an executive order. It was issued on September 22, 1862. The 13th amendment didn't get passed federally and ratified by the states until 1865.

I agree the way it SHOULD work is that congress passes laws and executive orders describe how those laws get enacted.

But we've seen more powerful executive orders, with the most dangerous coming about during the W Bush administration. People are fine when a candidate they like uses those increasing powers of "good" but then scream when it's used by Bush/Trump for the same purposes.

Executive orders have limits, specifically to offices that are directly under the Executive Branch (military, homeland security, intelligence, etc.) and so far Trump's orders actually fallen carefully within those limits.

He's been testing the limits of those jurisdictions and federal judges have struck them back. In reality, they should have been doing that years ago with other presidents, but instead we got decades of predator drones, warrantless wiretapping and secret kill lists.

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

#299

Post by yrlihuan »

fiblye wrote: post #272
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…

I’m not Chinese, but I do fear what I say on wechat because I know there’s a possibility I’ll be blocked from entering China again, or worse, blocked from exiting. I also fear what I say on American sites for similar reasons, and because I’ve dealt with normal people trying to hunt me down just because of online comments.

As far as I know, Chinese government doesn't ask for your social media accounts but the US does.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/2...

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

#300

Post by causality0 »

tehjoker wrote: post #264
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…

This is 100% the US foreign policy community saying we want 100% control over what US persons see. They've been waging a similar assault on RT. If you think Google, Facebook, et al aren't deeply intertwined with the US state and consult regularly with the pentagon, you haven't been watching the news. Believe it or not, US foreign policy people put out enormous amounts of propaganda and they got the US to repeal a ban…

Considering RT is the propaganda arm of the Russian government, I don't blame them. That's like saying Russia is bad because they want to hamper Voice of America or the Ad Council.
Post reply on HN