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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by AniseAbyss »

zachmu wrote: post #530
jrockway wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tiktok isn't "some website", it is partially owned and controlled by the CCP, which influences what content gets shown to Americans. A majority of zoomers get most of their news and information primarily from this platform, which again is under the influence of a hostile foreign government. (TikTok also spies on US citizens for the CCP, but let's keep this restricted to the free speech argument about the ban). We act…

[dead]

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

#752

Post by caekislove »

daveguy wrote: post #557
bjourne wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

China is not a US citizen.

"Congress shall make no law" doesn't mean "Unless foreigners are involved"

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

#753

Post by IncreasePosts »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #675
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…

Reciprocity in this case is supposed to mean "We allow your companies in as long as they follow the local laws, and you will allow our companies in as long as they follow the local laws." TikTok is following American law, which is significantly more permissible in terms of speech than China. American social media giants thought it was too damaging to follow Chinese law and voluntarily retreated (Google), played the g…

Well, fine. But now the American law TikTok needs to follow (assuming it is passed by the senate and signed by POTUS) is that the US TikTok needs to be sold, or become unavailable in app stores.

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

#754

Post by philwelch »

brookst wrote: post #723
zachmu wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A US citizen distributing foreign media themselves is quite different than what is effectively a directly controlled broadcast owned by a foreign government.

I’m not usually a slippery slope person, but if we’re outlawing content based on who owns the creator or transmitter, things get ugly quick.

“On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Activities_in...)

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

#755

Post by zachmu »

brookst wrote: post #723
zachmu wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A US citizen distributing foreign media themselves is quite different than what is effectively a directly controlled broadcast owned by a foreign government.

I’m not usually a slippery slope person, but if we’re outlawing content based on who owns the creator or transmitter, things get ugly quick.

It's not even content per se, it's much more insidious than that.

The comment I originally replied to likened tiktok to a printing press, but that's not quite right.

Imagine a printing press owned by an enemy that would subtly manipulate the text of whatever you tried to print. Or maybe it would omit entire articles from certain recipients of the newspaper, or reorganize the page layout to emphasize different things than the editor intended.

We wouldn't allow this hypothetical printing press controlled by a hostile foreign government to be sold in the US, we would be crazy to.

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

#756

Post by noqc »

kyrra wrote: post #334

The actual bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521 And I think the interesting bit is what is considered a covered company: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... The wording could be applied to many companies, including chat apps like Telegram. The only saving grace is that the company has to be controlled by a "foreign adversary", and it seems to explicitl…

You say only saving grace like its some sort of loophole. Most of the people who support banning tiktok have always maintained that the legal justification for banning it rests on the fact that it is controlled by a foreign adversary.

That's not a "saving grace", that's the content of the legislation.

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

#757

Post by EasyMark »

rbanffy wrote: post #460
amadeuspagel wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rupert Murdoch had to become US citizen to start a US TV network.

I gather he's not a great US citizen.

He isn't, I'm sure he's sewn more discord and hate than perhaps any other person in US history except perhaps 1 or 2 others (Trump being one).

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

#758

Post by jimkleiber »

qixxiq wrote: post #410
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 think there's one extension, although you _kind of_ covered it with "you just like the product" Some people are addicted to the product. It's not even that they like it any more, and they can see the harm it causes, but they also can't imagine their lives without it. I think it's a vital move by the government, but I also think it's too late.

Yeah, taking away someone's drug right before they're supposed to vote on whether they like you is not a good way to get people to like you.

I think the timing of this is really dangerous for democracy in the US. It may spur a fury and sense of betrayal in a lot of people, meaning they either don't vote, or they vote for the guy who makes a living on telling them the world is out to get them and no one cares about them.

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

#759

Post by IncreasePosts »

bilekas wrote: post #387
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…

> 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…

You know what doesn't end well? Letting foreign adversaries walk all over your nation and citizens.

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

#760

Post by csa »

theturtletalks wrote: post #509
jrockway wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How many times do we see the government trample on our rights behind “safety”? I’m fully with you on this. If TikTok is harmful, spread the word and let people make that decision for themselves. If kids are too small to make that decision, that falls on the parents. Don’t take away my rights because others can’t vet companies and use their brains if they should use the apps these companies put out.

I hope you realize that your libertarian stances are a wet dream for a pysops team.

The idea of “rights” expands far beyond that which works well for you and people like you.

Post reply on HN