Trump’s WeChat curbs halted by judge on free speech concerns • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by ineedasername » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

Dahoon wrote: post #129

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. How is for example Facebook better because it isn't somehow tied in to the US government? On the one hand the state still have access to all the data from Facebook it wants (NSA, warrants) but on the other they have a hard time protecting its users privacy…

The US government does things that aren't too good. But as far as having my data in Chinese or US intelligence's hands, I'll go with the country that won't put me in jail if one of my WeChats they monitor says something like "I don't like this country."

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

#312

Post by newen » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #24

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…

Their usage of wechat is more likely a liability than a benefit. It gives a foreign adversary visibility into their activities in US. How can they become activist or work for change if their government is monitoring everything they say? Do the Hong Kong protest crackdown not scare anyone else? Now they have an excuse. It won’t look suspicious if they communicate to each other on channels that can’t be monitored by th…

Why are you assuming an average Chinese citizen would want to be an activist or work for change? Most likely they have positive views of their government just like the average American citizen.

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

#313

Post by mywittyname » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

philliphaydon wrote: post #303

yrlihuan wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

china probably doesn’t need to ask. They already know who you are and what your social media is.

The US Government only "asks" because it further benefits them.

Maybe falsifying the documents counts as another charge to pressure someone they are holding, or legal counsel suggested it to ensure that any information found could be readily used against the person in a legal preceding, or plausible deniability cover for FOIA requests. I can think of a lot of ways that asking someone for something you already know about can be beneficial and no ways that it is detrimental.

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

#314

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #100

politician wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong case to be made that WeChat is, as a practical matter, a public minister as defined in Article 2. Therefore, the executive has the right to refuse their presence in the US. All Chinese companies operate under the direction and control of the CCP; we can arrive at the conclusion that a company is a public minister if companies are people, and they act at the behest of their home government. h…

To clarify the CCP control of companies: 1) The CCP has to have a representative on the board. The ccp say it's like a union rep(!) since they are communists. But they don't have a veto, just a vote like other board members. 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. 3) This also applies to large foreign companies not just domestic.

> 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size.

That may not be the case for much longer:

"According to the new provisions, private firms will need a certain amount of CCP registered employees, which is already a long-term practise in large private firms but not smaller ones."

https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-tak...

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

#315

Post by controversia » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #282

controversy wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read my profile. Thank you.

Single purpose accounts aren't ok on HN, and obviously not when the purpose is ideological battle, so we've banned this one. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What if it wasn't a single purpose account? What if it was an account that partakes in conversations both technical and political? What if HN has become more and more political and threatening to the health of the nation and the commentator was simply saying thing that are sane?

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

#316

Post by coliveira » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #271

coliveira wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American democracy didn't respond to the authoritarian plans other than hoping that the judicial system will do its work. This is too little too late, especially when republicans are in a frenzy run to shape judicial benches all over the country. The democratic answer, as I mentioned above, would be for Congress to introduce proper legislation to answer to this new situation where a foreign company operates a soc…

Separation of powers and checks and balances are key to the USA not being an authoritarian country, otherwise we would be more like China where the official branch is only checked by their superiors (if any). Congress is another check on executive power and is also checked itself. However, the judicial system is designed to be way more responsive and definitive than the legislative branch.

Exactly he opposite, Congress is (or should be) the main focus in a democracy because it has elected officials representing the nation. The judiciary should be the last resort in the case of indecision between the other two branches. In the dysfunctional American democracy exactly the opposite happens: people hope that judges will save democracy and the legislative becomes each year more powerless against the executive.

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

#317

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:43 AM UTC

ramshanker wrote: post #105

I think the best way to do this would be American Congress passing a law giving President power to directly "Ban equivalent companies of other countries, which ban American companies on their respective jurisdiction". This is full of subjective opinionated law to pass, but at least courts would have some ground to held the bans. Courts are good at deciphering "intent" of the law. This ban is effectively a Tit-for-tat…

> This ban is effectively a Tit-for-tat.

Or, you could say, Tik-for-Tok.

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

#318

Post by afrojack123 » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:52 AM UTC

This ridiculous. WeChat is the least free speech platform there is. It exists to monitor Chinese abroad and have pro-China news.

I believe there was a video where a Chinese United Nations member was telling a Chinese audience that every member of the United Nations has a nationality. This opposes the values of the United Nations and clearly China is there to abuse the system.

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

#319

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:53 AM UTC

8note wrote: post #285

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…

China's still not regained sovereignty that was lost during that time. Eg: Hong kong

In what sense is China not "sovereign" over Hong Kong?

While it's true that the Sino-British Joint Declaration placed some temporary restrictions on China's policies regarding that region, this is an agreement between sovereign nations, thus reaffirming China's sovereignty.

I suppose that, in a sense, all international treaties are a loss of some degree of sovereignty, but in that sense nearly every country in the world has lost sovereignty in that time.

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

#320

Post by ng12 » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 2:57 AM UTC

bluedays wrote: post #4

I always wondered how we squared disallowing things like WeChat and TikTok with freedom of speech. This whole thing feels a bit hyperbolic. Is there real danger lurking around the corner if we allow people to shit post on TikTok, for instance? Genuinely curious here.

As someone who fervently supports freedom of speech my stance is all bets are off when you have a known bad actor in the room. The PRC will use this data to sensor and oppress, full stop.