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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by ambichook »

archagon wrote: post #397

The idea that a piece of software can be “banned” on a national level shows how far we’ve fallen in terms of general purpose computing. In a reasonable world, banning an app would be a non-sequitur, because you would always be able to find a mirror if you wanted to use it. Once governments discover that they have this power, they will make every effort to close the PC loophole and subsequently ban anything unfavorabl…

there's absolutely nothing illegal about installing the app, if you can find a mirror that's operated outside of US borders by a non US company then you can just download it still

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

#842

Post by archagon »

ambichook wrote: post #841
archagon wrote: post #397

The idea that a piece of software can be “banned” on a national level shows how far we’ve fallen in terms of general purpose computing. In a reasonable world, banning an app would be a non-sequitur, because you would always be able to find a mirror if you wanted to use it. Once governments discover that they have this power, they will make every effort to close the PC loophole and subsequently ban anything unfavorabl…

there's absolutely nothing illegal about installing the app, if you can find a mirror that's operated outside of US borders by a non US company then you can just download it still

The problem is that this is not an option on many devices due to walled corporate gardens.

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

#843

Post by orangecat »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #592
Kerrick wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 domest…

What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies? It isnt that easy.

What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies?

That would likely be unwise, but it would be a legitimate use of authority.

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

#844

Post by cogman10 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #779
cogman10 wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misunderstanding of what the first amendment means. Speech and individual expression are individual rights and not institution rights. Perhaps you have some argument with "freedom of press" but that's a pretty hefty uphill battle for TikTok to prove that they are press and not just a random social media business. Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business…

> Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business can and can't say. For example, a supplement company can't advertise "This fish oil will cure your cancer!" That's misunderstanding what law is. An individual can be tried for fraud just as a business. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech.

You can restrict businesses from saying things beyond what individuals can say.

For example, the FCC prevents public broadcasters from saying "fuck" on the air. Yet you can yell "Fuck the police" over and over again and be protected by the first amendment. There are words and speeches that can't be aired on public TV.

There are other instances of this. A publicly traded business cannot, for example, has to be careful with public statements. There are things they can't say while the stock market is open (such as announcing a merger). Yet an individual has no such restrictions on their free speech. The closest analogy would be preventing individuals from inciting a riot or issuing calls for violence.

And that underlines that free speech in the US has limits (and always has). About the only speech that is pretty much fully protected is political speech, but as I said, even that falls a bit short as you can get in hot water if someone uses your political speech as inspiration for violence.

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

#845

Post by orangecat »

Miner49er wrote: post #495
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want, including whatever is on Tik Tok. This is covered by the first amendment.

Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want

And they do. This isn't a content-based ban. If a non-Chinese company acquires TikTok, they can continue to host exactly the same material without restrictions.

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

#846

Post by datavirtue »

msabalau wrote: post #777
throwaway199956 wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Propaganda of other countries are legal under first ammendment. Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which apps one can or cannot use on one's device. Also even at the hight of cold war, Soviet Life magazine was published and disseminated widely in the US.

If the first amendment actually protects TikTok here, as may be the case, then the courts can strike this down. On the other hand, perhaps the first amendment doesn't block this. In that case, that relevant consideration would seems to be rare broad bipartisan support (as evidenced by a very lopsided 352-65 vote, but we'll see what happens in the Senate) to limit the potential harm that can be done by the information…

The law will have little impact except to reacquaint children with web browsers, VPNs and side loading.

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

#847

Post by zachmu »

datavirtue wrote: post #846
msabalau wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the first amendment actually protects TikTok here, as may be the case, then the courts can strike this down. On the other hand, perhaps the first amendment doesn't block this. In that case, that relevant consideration would seems to be rare broad bipartisan support (as evidenced by a very lopsided 352-65 vote, but we'll see what happens in the Senate) to limit the potential harm that can be done by the information…

The law will have little impact except to reacquaint children with web browsers, VPNs and side loading.

You are drastically overestimating the capabilities and determination of tiktok users

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

#848

Post by vineyardmike »

idle_zealot wrote: post #546
motoxpro wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. This is the main thing agaisnt the free speech argument. We have also passed this same law in radio and TV. It's about influence at a mass scale more than anything. I don't know why we would want a foreign ADVERSARY to have free reign.

This framing is all backwards. Americans go to TikTok for content of their own free will. This law effectively prevents Americans from using an information service they prefer. Unless, of course, you want to admit that social media applications, through some combination of peer pressure, advertising, propaganda, manipulation, and deception subvert the free will of some portion of their users. In which case naturally…

> Except... then the regulation drafted reads as "only American companies are allowed to subvert the free will of Americans", which comes off as pretty sinister.

Sinister or not this framing makes a lot more sense than the alternative if you write it like this:

“Only companies [beholden to American interests] are allowed to [influence] Americans”.

The core premise is really rather dull. If the company poses a risk to Americans, then it should exist fully within reach of the US Gov regulations and completely out of the control of adversaries.

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

#849

Post by vineyardmike »

yorwba wrote: post #485
User23 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's being described isn't an eye for an eye, but tit for tat. And tit for tat is the norm for international relations and has been since time immemorial. Usually it's relatively dull stuff, like if country A requires citizens of country B to have a visa to visit, country B will as a matter of course require citizens of country A to have visas to visit too.

Tit for tat makes sense in a situation where you expect to work out a deal, both sides agree to stop, and everyone is better off. E.g. allowing visa-free travel in both directions between A and B. But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the i…

> But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight.

Sounds like it’s bad idea to freely open the door to China.

> Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead?

The law says they can’t exist in China, Russia, NK, Iran so this is fine.

> And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move?

If they leave China, and its influence, it sounds like a clear win for the US goals. If they’re already in the US then it’s a no-op and they shouldn’t be affected because why would they?

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

#850

Post by arrosenberg »

aethros wrote: post #653
arrosenberg wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algorithmic content is not free speech. The government can't make Facebook censor this message or that message, but they can certainly restrict the usage of algorithmic content feeds - that is not protected by the first amendment. I'm not just talking about Tiktok either, this is the issue they should be legislating on, and it should target all social media companies. There is also legislation giving them to right to…

How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run. Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.

Algorithms aren't protected by the US Constitution, that's ridiculous. Point me to the single person who wrote the Facebook algorithm and I will change my opinion and protect its' speech. The press is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Beyond that, commercial speech is not broadly protected. Megaphones, in general, are not free speech.

And we know this. You cannot advertise cigarettes on TV, cities can ban billboards, and until recently, the law understood that donating millions of dollars to a politician is not a form a speech - it's a bribe (we'll have to work on that one).

The press has a protected right to report. Even the press that are really thinly-veiled propaganda outlets get this protection. You have a protected right to speak in public and petition the government for redress without fear of reprisal. Social media and content algorithms are neither the press nor individual citizens, and they are not covered by the language or spirit of the first amendment.

Post reply on HN