The TikTok Hearings Inspired Little Faith in Social Media or in Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: The TikTok Hearings Inspired Little Faith in Social Media or in Congress

#41

Post by thefounder » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 9:09 AM UTC

crayboff wrote: post #37

thefounder wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the 1st amendment does not apply to foreign entities. These entities are more like foreign agents. Imagine Google, Apple, Microsoft, Tiktok and most of the media companies(i.e Fox, CNN) would be owned by the CCP. What influence do you think they would have over the U.S population if they would be left unchecked? Should they benefit from 1st amendment?

Where is the line? There are a lot of Chinese companies who make things that are used in the US by US citizens. What about companies from other countries like Ukraine, Russia, Germany?

It seems obvious to me that if you deem the said country as enemy/systemic rival that's the line you are drawing. I think the governace model(i.e authoritan/communist) could be another reason. The U.S-China relationship worked so far b/c China didn't show its teeth until few years ago. Now China is supporting Russia in the invasion of Ukraine. Either way the question here if foreign state sponsored entities should benefit from the 1st amendment and IMHO I believe the answer is NO.

Re: The TikTok Hearings Inspired Little Faith in Social Media or in Congress

#42

Post by joenot443 » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 10:18 AM UTC

thefounder wrote: post #31

joenot443 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of very reasonable Yes/No questions which he made every possible effort not to answer, something I found very telling. On more than one occasion he was asked if he supports the ongoing state-led genocide of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang and he repeatedly refused to give an answer.

So what answer did you expect from him? Last time i've checked China was still a communist state

As he was quick to let us know, he is Singaporean and TikTok is a “global” company.

Obviously that’s nonsense and he’s most certainly in the pocket of the CCP, but it is fascinating seeing the deceit in real time.

Re: The TikTok Hearings Inspired Little Faith in Social Media or in Congress

#43

Post by DuckFeathers » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 8:47 PM UTC

cool_dude85 wrote: post #13

luckylion wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will be far better having US as dominant power than having the axis countries like China, Russia, Iran. For us in Europe, that's certainly true. For someone in South America where the US had installed some dictator, or funded and trained some paramilitary groups to clear lands for US fruit companies, I don't think that answer is quite as clear.

Let's be fair, the US has installed and supported plenty of dictators in Europe. In Greece, Spain and Romania at least the US has strongly supported the dictators there.

You don't need to install dictators. You can just continue to get potentially problematic leaders into unexpected accidents until your guy gets voted into power.

Re: The TikTok Hearings Inspired Little Faith in Social Media or in Congress

#44

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

joenot443 wrote: post #28

zillolo wrote: post #10

There seems to be a lot of pro-congress sentiment ITT right now, which is worrying to me. TikTok is a capitalist social media company that certaily deserves a lot of scrutiny, especially considering ties to China. But if you think Congress did a good job here...then I don't know how we live in such wildly different worlds. Asking that CEO "does TikTok access the home wifi network?" is such an incomplete question. Eve…

There are plenty of very reasonable Yes/No questions which he made every possible effort not to answer, something I found very telling. On more than one occasion he was asked if he supports the ongoing state-led genocide of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang and he repeatedly refused to give an answer.

If he had just said the widely-known-outside-USA truth, that there is no "genocide" of Uighurs, lots of people would have gotten upset. He doesn't care one way or the other about our latest fundamentalist-Christian-inspired intended casus belli, so the less he says about it the better for his firm.

Re: The TikTok Hearings Inspired Little Faith in Social Media or in Congress

#45

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 7:54 PM UTC

thefounder wrote: post #35

crayboff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best things and worst things about America is the first amendment. It is amazing that you can say or make just about anything without the government jailing you or shutting you down. It feels horrible because that freedom necessitates people who believe everyone else has the same ability to say or make anything they want, even if you find that stuff disgusting or risky. Yes, there are definitely some limit…

I believe the 1st amendment does not apply to foreign entities. These entities are more like foreign agents. Imagine Google, Apple, Microsoft, Tiktok and most of the media companies(i.e Fox, CNN) would be owned by the CCP. What influence do you think they would have over the U.S population if they would be left unchecked? Should they benefit from 1st amendment?

Full text 1A:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There's nothing in there about foreign entities or any other authors of speech. It's about speech (and religion and assembly and petition) itself, which the state is directed to leave the fuck alone. The variety of zany things any particular entity might want to say is not even the main point. Freedom of speech is important because it means we get to hear and read and experience speech from everyone and everywhere. As soon as a line is drawn around speakers we're not allowed to hear, we no longer have the freedom of speech. Many people are confused about this because they habitually speak without listening. Those of us who mostly listen are not confused in this manner.