Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#571

Post by pksebben »

BeetleB wrote: post #373
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are (used to be?) a country that believes in democracy and the will of our citizens. If people want to download a Chinese app and watch straight up Chinese news and propaganda (not even close to what TikTok actually is), they sh…

As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. If someone makes a video of a TikTok video and shares it on Youtube/Whatsapp, that's legal. The actual content is legal, so it's not a free speech/censorship issue. This is the equivalent of "We'v…

What I find troubling about this is the delta between the vox populi and the decision made.

Whether it's right or prudent or whatever, if you figure that people using the service don't want it shut down (~170M or roughly half of the population) then what's happening here is that our "representatives" are doing what they always do and totally ignoring their constituency.

Mind you, this isn't surprising in the least, but perhaps it's a good moment to step back and reflect a little on this snag in our governance.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#572

Post by Kerrick »

jrockway wrote: post #486
codekaze wrote: post #213

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete…

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "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." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of…

Our Constitution also says, "The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

Forcing a sale of TikTok so it's not foreign (with a punishment of banning if they don't), especially while making no such law for U.S. controlled competitors, is no more an infringement upon free speech than introducing a tariff or trade restriction on German-manufactured printing presses while leaving domestic models untouched.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#573

Post by NicoJuicy »

jaylittle wrote: post #98
NicoJuicy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Europe. Since China was supporting Russia to start a war on European soil. I sure hope that China's influence is reduced to a minimum as quickly as possible. Ofc, that includes propaganda through TikTok.

This bill does nothing to address the problem of nation state propaganda spreading via social media. It just allows American politicians to claim a fake national security victory over a Chinese owned company while ignoring the fact that American owned social media companies are a steaming cesspool full of such content. Dont get me wrong, I think TikTok is terrible. I won't use it. Ever. But that still doesn't mean it…

Ofc it does. Byte dance literally has a internal Chinese Communist Party committee since 2017.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#574

Post by layer8 »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #456
bilekas wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? I understand what you're saying and I actually support the ban as tiktok can be used as a giant botnet at-will by Chinas government, but an eye for an eye doesn't end well and the US is supposed to be "free" so this part of the argument I…

US freedom applies only to citizens and residents and not foreign govts.

That’s part of what is being criticized. Human rights are supposed to be universal, and some countries actually handle them like that, applying them to citizens and foreigners alike.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#575

Post by aprilthird2021 »

karaterobot wrote: post #541
wongarsu wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on…

I don't know whether the first amendment is meant to stop this kind of regulation, but I suppose that's one the courts have either settled already, or will get a chance to settle. I would guess that a foreign company's right to either operate a business in the U.S., or service U.S. citizens from a foreign country, is treated differently when it comes to first amendment protections compared to say a domestic business…

Lamont v Postmaster General will likely come up if this bill passes. It concerned Americans receiving foreign propaganda in the mail and the Postal Service attempting to stop this distribution.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#576

Post by himinlomax »

bjourne wrote: post #504
codekaze wrote: post #213

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete…

The word "reciprocity" cannot hide the fact that two wrongs doesn't make a right. We think it is wrong of China to censor Facebook and Twitter because that is what authoritarian regimes that don't give a shit about free speech do. For exactly the same reason it is wrong of the US to ban TikTok. And this bill has nothing to do with balancing international trade. It's stated purpose is to restrict China's ability to in…

Demanding fairness and reciprocity is not wrong. It's a basic moral position. Furthermore, imposing restriction on totalitarian regimes is perfectly legitimate as well. Letting them do as they please as you argue is, in fact, the morally reprehensible position.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#577

Post by aydyn »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #565
kirse wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. No, TikTok is essentially digital opium. And China itself has confirmed that reality by 1) restricting their citizens' daily access and 2) significantly filtering the content they can see on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-ti... It would only be fair of the US to follow China's example of protecting its citizens from numbin…

If you honestly believed this to be true, you would be arguing for a ban on all social media, as like half of Instagram is just reposts of TikTok content and is otherwise mind-numbingly equivalent to the service.

False equivalence. You're essentially equating caffeine with cocaine.

Not being the target audience, you're likely naive to the extent of harm enabled by tiktok.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#578

Post by aprilthird2021 »

karaterobot wrote: post #346

The arguments I can think of for why you wouldn't support restricting social media owned by foreign adversaries: * You don't believe social media companies can become literal or de facto extensions of the countries they are located in. * You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in it…

I don't think the government should be like China and ban me from seeing content in social media spheres it doesn't like.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#579

Post by aydyn »

I think a lot of the HN crowd are beyond the target age for a lot of tiktok trends, and don't realize the extent of sociopathic behavior being enabled on tiktok. Even ignoring overtly political trends, the social contract is being shredded for money and clout.

Tiktok is not just another social media platform. It is a mass digital propaganda machine controlled by a foreign government.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#580

Post by cryptonector »

wongarsu wrote: post #393
karaterobot wrote: post #346

The arguments I can think of for why you wouldn't support restricting social media owned by foreign adversaries: * You don't believe social media companies can become literal or de facto extensions of the countries they are located in. * You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in it…

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on…

The rights acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution are rights of U.S. Persons (citizens, nationals, and permanent residents). They are not all rights of non-U.S. Persons, though some, like the Fifth Amendment, clearly are rights of all Persons. For example, if you're a tourist accused of committing a crime in the U.S. you do have a right to counsel and a right to not self-incriminate, but also you don't have the right to not be deported, and you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

Which rights are for U.S. Persons only, and which are for all Persons, is not entirely clear to me. But I strongly suspect that freedom of speech and of the press is mainly for U.S. Persons only.

It will certainly be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.

Post reply on HN