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

Post by YetAnotherNick » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:34 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #258

hurrdurr2 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read somewhere that they can force the ISPs to ban wechat traffic? I'm not in IT so is this just complete hogwash?

They really can’t. They would need some kind of firewall to do it, and ISPs simply aren’t setup for that. They can’t even ban child porn sites effectively (instead the police must rely on catching viewers of such and shutting down sites physically if possible).

Post by pishpash » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:48 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #309

codedokode wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And at the same time FB/Google/Twitter are controlled by US government. If they do something "wrong", they get called to Congress to talk and change their mind. This is not what a truly independent company would do. Truly independent company would tell Congress to mind their own business and not bother them.

Congress can't actually tell the companies what to do. They can call them to testify, and they are obligated to show up, but they can stonewall or spout PR, and Congress can't do anything.

Post by pishpash » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:06 AM UTC

therealx wrote: post #270

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an app for crying out loud. No one is "controlling communication of Americans" through an app.

Maybe not, but manipulating emotions is proven to have happened, and that seems pretty dangerous. Then it's the next mental hop to having the gov push their agenda that way.

Post by zepto » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:06 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #226

derex wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by pishpash » Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:09 AM UTC

azernik wrote: post #276

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.

The laws involved are all about banning financial transactions - people sending money to ByteDance. IMO those laws are being abused in this case to suppress speech, but the laws themselves had a legitimate purpose.