Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#621

Post by chrischen » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #454

chrischen wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 can be used to justify anything. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to start blocking / severely limiting US social media companies. #2 Blocking apps used for the dissemination of information is a free-speech issue. China blocks information because that's what they believe in. US blocking information is fundamentally against our beliefs. If China jumped off a bridge would we do so as well? #2 h…

You have missed both points entirely. You're assuming that there are 'free market' conditions here (i.e. competition) - there are not. Not even close. 'Free market' ideals such as 'competition and innovation' are not the issues here, because a) there is no 'free market' and b) we're talking about mass media, which is really not about 'innovation'. #1 is a very legitimate issue. To control the mass media, is to contro…

> #1 is a very legitimate issue. To control the mass media, is to control a nation, this is not a 'new world order' concept, it's as old as time.

And trying to control what media platforms are allowable... You sound like a communist Chinese official here.

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#622

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

mtrpcic wrote: post #58

UncleMeat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes TikTok different than literally any other website in this manner?

...being controlled by the CCP is what makes it different. All of these sites/apps have the ability to shove propaganda in the faces of millions of people, only one of them is run by a government.

Surely there are other websites like this. Bytedance isn't the only chinese company that exists. Should my browser not allow me to visit those websites?

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#623

Post by vin047 » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

deevolution wrote: post #604

ardy42 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is a popular information-sharing social platform, and there are Chinese actors on it, but this argument isn't extended to suggest that it be banned, either. But somehow, a platform that does both must not be allowed to exist? I don't get it. Is it that hard to understand? Twitter and Facebook will at least try to make a genuine effort to root out and ban "coordinated inauthentic activity" by the Chinese gov…

Banning/setting up a firewall makes us no different than the CCP! Personally I think all the effort and resources spent policing social media platforms is a complete waste and malinvestment. This looks like an overreach of government power.

@localhost’s link has an answer to that:

> Perhaps the most powerful argument against taking any sort of action is that we aren’t China, and isn’t blocking TikTok something that China would do? Well yes, we know that is what they would do, because the Chinese government has blocked U.S. social networks for years. Wars, though, are fought not because we lust for battle, but because we pray for peace. If China is on the offensive against liberalism not only within its borders but within ours, it is in liberalism’s interest to cut off a vector that has taken root precisely because it is so brilliantly engineered to give humans exactly what they want.

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#624

Post by basch » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

localhost wrote: post #20

Unlike some other commenters below, I don't believe that this is a privacy issue. Instead, I believe that it is a national security issue because TikTok is controllable by the CCP which is ideologically opposed to the United States. The next global conflict will likely be one between the east and the west, with control of information being advantageous to both sides in the conflict. China already blocks the western I…

techcrunch had some food for thought on the topic as well, not just standard reuters/ap repost spam.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/20/gangster-capitalism-and-th...

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#625

Post by basch » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #546

localhost wrote: post #20

Unlike some other commenters below, I don't believe that this is a privacy issue. Instead, I believe that it is a national security issue because TikTok is controllable by the CCP which is ideologically opposed to the United States. The next global conflict will likely be one between the east and the west, with control of information being advantageous to both sides in the conflict. China already blocks the western I…

In that post, Ben writes: > It feels like we're talking past each other. I completely agree! I do feel like you and I and Ben (even after reading Ben's post) are still talking past each other. I am completely lost at the point where you say "A and B, therefore C, the US should ban TikTok." What is it about the combination of success and external control that means TikTok should be banned? Ben wrote: > This [video-bas…

There is a much simpler argument to be made, with regard to protectionism. Whether you agree with the morality or not, it it benefits American companies to have their competition banned. They are then free to clone it, without having to fight for users. Considering the isolationist and nationalist tendencies of the current administration, such a decision is consistent and fitting. One could argue, it most benefits the national security of the country to keep its tech giants strong, and free from external threats. And that entire argument can be made without bringing up data.

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#626

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

ace_of_spades wrote: post #617

cooljacob204 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nearly as back and white as you would appear to like it to be. I do not see any laws being broken or US Citizen rights being trodden on with this ban. They're not even setting a new precedent with this ban. It is completely within the executive branches power to ban a foreign corporation for national security reason, reasons that may not be completely clear to the public. Though I think the reason is very cl…

As a European I can‘t resist but to say that I wish that we would start banning all of the American internet cooperations that are required by law to share their data with the US government which has time and time again shown that they are willing to abuse access. Remember the time they wanted to wiretap Angela Merkel? Good times! It‘s really astonishing to what extent people are willing to be hypocrites not only but…

[deleted]

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#627

Post by freeone3000 » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #570

colejohnson66 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they a…

The Bill of Attainder is something completely different. a _Bill_ of Attainder is an illegal piece of legislation that targets a specific individual. For example, a law that says "It's illegal to be Bill Bryson" is an Bill of attainder, and is forbidden by the constitution. That does not apply on a number of levels. 1) this ban is an act of the executive, not the legislature. It is not a bill. 2) this ban does not de…

The executive powers do not come from nothing; the legislature has delegated certain of its powers to the executive branch. In order to be banned from being imported, in the form of downloads, TikTok would have to be a threat to national security (the government said how yet, but they don't have to until trial) or involved in terrorism (the government has not argued this). They have to make a reasonable case as to how this is not simply banning speech they do not like.

It's also not clear whether a download is actually an importation, or whether the Department of Commerce has any bearing on a US company (Google) manufacturing new copies of a product based on a foreign design. (The Huawei case is far from decided!)

As for your third point: Someone did notice, and filed a lawsuit in federal court! This is an article about the ongoings about that case.

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#628

Post by vin047 » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #605

joenot443 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are pretty massive differences in reach and impact between english.gov.cn and TikTok. I don't think that comparison really holds much water.

OK so we should ban something if it gets popular, but it doesn't matter if it's worse but it's not popular. By extension should we ignore someone who's selling 1 gram of heroin at a time but we should definitely put a guy transporting 1 ton of industrial hemp in prison, on the ground that hemp can be turned into pot, somehow.

You’re comparing Apples to Oranges, or in your case, heroin to hemp; no ones banning the components that make up TikTok (the code, the business, the algorithms etc)...

Comparing heroin to heroin though, yes we do ignore someone who’s selling 1 gram of heroin at a time over someone selling 1 ton of heroin at a time.

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#629

Post by mullingitover » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #238

jerrysievert wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

great, then California could take Oregon and Washington as well, since they're "anarchist states" and all. New York would likely follow suit. Colorado would probably join with the west coast, leaving Texas to carry most of what was left of the country. Don't mess with Texas, which is to say that they don't want to be the ones paying for everything. Now we have 3 countries that can feed themselves, pay for what they n…

> with coastal access At a finer grain, looking at the top 20 CSAs[1], many are non-coastal, but to my guesstimates only 20% are not on a navigable river: 7 8'000'000 Dallas-Forth Worth 11 6'900'000 Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs (160 km to Columbus) 13 5'000'000 Phoenix-Mesa 17 3'600'000 Denver-Aurora (Boston-Worcester-Providence is almost as large as my entire country, and has far better water transport…

> Why not? While "Civilian aircraft and aircraft engines" probably takes a hit, the remaining US should continue to have its major exports:

The US would lose all the nuclear weapons on the west coast in that deal, which would result in some exciting geopolitical changes. CalOreShington would have a bunch of ballistic missiles, nuclear subs, and long-range bombers.

For the first time the US would have a potent, nuclear-armed non-ally adjacent to its border. There would be hostilities resulting from the federal government demanding compensation for the vast amounts of federal land that would be lost, and the inevitable "come and take it" reply.

The remaining states should certainly hope that they don't lose Colorado in that deal, because they'd be losing NORAD to boot.

Re: Judge temporarily blocks U.S. ban on TikTok downloads from U.S. app stores

#630

Post by ardy42 » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

mechnesium wrote: post #505

p1necone wrote: post #196

You know you don't have to argue about who's in the wrong here? It's okay to accept that both the USA and China are in the wrong, not everything has to be a fight with a winner. China for having uncomfortable amounts of government control/vision over the data and operations of Chinese social media companies. And the USA for singling out Tik Tok seemingly arbitrarily, and banning it for "national security" reasons wit…

> USA for singling out Tik Tok seemingly arbitrarily, and banning it for "national security" reasons without going into any detail about what they are or what evidence they have for them. It’s McCarthyism all over again. This type of behavior, coming from the very top of the US government, is unacceptable. It’s an erosion of your freedoms and needs to be vehemently fought.

> It’s McCarthyism all over again.

This isn't McCarthyism, and to call it that shows a lack of understanding of what McCarthyism actually was.