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

351–360 of 401 posts

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

#351

Post by toomanybeersies »

mywittyname wrote: post #313
philliphaydon wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

I was told (but don't quote me on this) that this is the reason why they require you to answer so many questions as part of the ESTA process. It more or less serves to cover the govt's ass and give cause for deportation if you lie on your application.

They used to ask if you had been involved in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. It still asks

> Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide?

I don't think anybody would ever seriously answer "yes" to that question, but if the US government wants to deport an individual and it's discovered they lied on their ESTA application, it's more straightforward to deport them.

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

#352

Post by stjohnswarts »

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

You actually think that the largest communication app in China isn't under complete control of the CCP and that they don't have complete access to every transaction that flows through Wechat servers?

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

#353

Post by garyfirestorm »

pishpash wrote: post #333
ineedasername wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Congress can make laws that directly affect said companies, hardly not "anything".

Ah. Bunch of 60+ ppl trying to figure out how tech works and then think of laws governing the said tech which should appear to be fair and useful. Sweet.

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

#354

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

You do know that Japan had been invading China and trying to influence it in the decades before WW2 don't you? Joining with the Allies was the common sense thing to do

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

#356

Post by stjohnswarts »

neither_color wrote: post #59
wombatmobile wrote: post #16

When trying to understand China's commercial policies which America is supposedly retaliating against, consider that China has experienced a different mercantile history to America. America has never been invaded by foreign gunships and forced to allow foreign merchants to import opium to addict its citizens in order to fix their own countries balance of payments problems. Opium Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opi…

I understand the sentimentality of your argument but fail to see the logic. So because China was treated badly by other countries 150 years ago they should ban our apps while we shouldnt ban theirs?

That's what they're saying, that China is a victim and gets special treatment while they put Uyghers in concentration camps, have the second largest economy in the world, and surveil every citizen as if they're guilty of treason.

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

#357

Post by stjohnswarts »

swiley wrote: post #302

I really don't understand how they thought this would work. If they at least wanted to be consistent they should have banned smartphone chat apps (and there are some good reasons to do this.) That probably still wouldn't have been legal because of the free speech thing. I wish there was something decent I could recommend to people but Apple has done a fantastic job of killing internet chat apps.

Wait you think the US should ban all chat apps?

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

#358

Post by leric »

yeahrightok wrote: post #136
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." 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…

Exactly, that is how Chinese gov take control of your mainstream media and social media, it's much cheaper easier than building aircraft carriers, and more effective.

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

#359

Post by leric »

bigpumpkin wrote: post #209
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.

American citizens that use WeChat have first amendment rights

What about WeChat censoring your speech, is 1st amendment okay with that?

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

#360

Post by seanmcdirmid »

coliveira wrote: post #316
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 executi…

Seeing as Trump can’t do much without congress, I don’t get your point. His executive orders are limited m, and the judiciary is the branch that tells him that, the legislative branch has more power but doesn’t get to tell trump what his executive orders can do like the judicial system.
Post reply on HN