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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by cutemonster »

paganel wrote: post #676
BatFastard wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the founders could account for international influence in the age of the Internet and smart phones. No one is asking for a great wall around the US. People are just asking that major influencers are not under the control of hostile governments.

If American democracy goes down because of "foreign influencers" from platforms like TikTok then it means that it wasn't all that strong to begin with.

I don't think there's any country that can withstand someone having direct access to manipulate more than half of the population

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

#862

Post by aydyn »

tstrimple wrote: post #860
aydyn wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, how about this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1bdopik... Or this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1be3b75... Randomly sexually harassing strangers for clout, what could go wrong. This shit enabling sociopathic behavior happens 9 out of 10 times on tiktok and not other social media platforms. I'm out of touch? You're literally old enough to have children who are the pr…

It's hilarious that you think youtube pranks started and are over-represented on TikTok. Got any more pearls to clutch? You're just reinforcing how out of touch you are.

Youtube? Huh?? That's the most braindead take I've seen yet LOL.

Got anymore false equivalences, dad?

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

#863

Post by paulryanrogers »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #749
amou234 wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What most of the posters in this thread don't realize is that US is effectively at war with China. China is working in front of the scenes to be the major funder of Russia's war [1] against Europe, which is US's ally amongst the coalition of democratic countries. China is working behind the scenes to stop the supply of artillery shells to Ukraine. [2]. and it is increasingly and more visibly supplying Russia with mil…

Even if that's true, if we suspend our constitutional rights to conduct a war, then what's the point in having them? I thought they were inalienable. Imagine trying to suspend the 2nd amendment because of school shootings. The reason kinda doesn't matter when rights are on the line.

> Imagine trying to suspend the 2nd amendment because of school shootings.

2A is for well regulated militias, from an era when the government struggled to raise and maintain a standing army, and wasn't sure an army could even be trusted. 2A was antiquated long before schools started having to teach toddlers survival tactics.

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

#864

Post by yowzadave »

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…

It's a peeve of mine when people talk about the "CCP" like this, almost universally in a negative context--like they're trying to invoke the specter of communism in a scary way. Maybe you didn't mean it that way? Why say "CCP" rather than just "China"?

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

#865

Post by thegginthesky »

s_dev wrote: post #372
happytoexplain wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they feel their relationship with the US is similar to the US's relationship with China in the relevant ways, then they absolutely should do the same. My understanding is that they don't feel that way, generally speaking. They do in fact impose less extreme controls on data from these platforms, that lesser extremity presumably reflecting their lesser perception of the US's use of that data as highly dangerous, as…

>My understanding is that they don't feel that way, generally speaking. US tech companies currently getting slapped around with large fines in the EU for similar infringements of privacy etc.

That is a much lesser punishment than what the US is doing in this thread. A fine that is a small but non-insignficant percentage of annual revenue is a measured response when you want to punish bad behavior but allow businesses to still operate within the jurisdiction.

Restricting business operation altogether is a response a country gives when they see the other party as extremely adversarial, which is a few orders of magnitude above what EU fines are to Big Tech.

Big difference

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

#866

Post by tstrimple »

aydyn wrote: post #862
tstrimple wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hilarious that you think youtube pranks started and are over-represented on TikTok. Got any more pearls to clutch? You're just reinforcing how out of touch you are.

Youtube? Huh?? That's the most braindead take I've seen yet LOL. Got anymore false equivalences, dad?

You don't even know what false equivalence means apparently. Yeah, the obnoxious prank videos far pre-date TikTok. See what I mean about you having no idea what you're talking about and just clutching pearls like "concerned" morons ranting about how D&D is ruining the fabric of society? You're literally bringing as much evidence and credibility as them. Really sad how "hackers" are so quick to censor things they can't comprehend. It seems "hackernews" is closer to "karennews" than anything else these days. "Why won't anyone think of the children!?"

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

#867

Post by nebula8804 »

PreachSoup wrote: post #293
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did it to all previous OEMs via forcing them into Joint Ventures. So it would be actually equal treatment for Tesla as the rest of OEMs.

Yep. Tesla is actually the outlier here where China gave them the special treatment. Now China has their own formidable EVs now. Would China say gave us shares or f** off to Tesla?

Reading the Musk biography, it seems like they just had the right people who really knew the Chinese government try extra hard to convince them to grant the exception to Tesla.

I personally think its more than that. We have firms here in the US that tear down the Teslas, deeply analyze the cars and sell the reports to whoever will buy (essentially other car companies). The Chinese are snapping up all the Tesla reports and multiple firms that do this work are reporting that the Chinese only want Tesla, they are offered info on the other OEMs and they don't care at all.

It seems like the Chinese know that Tesla is their primary competition. We see it in their actions as well. When Tesla announced "giga castings" for their cars, the Chinese companies were the first to jump on that train as fast as possible. Everyone else was still debating wether or not if it was worth the cost.

[1]:https://youtu.be/L8LN6Vnnyfo?t=1532

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

#868

Post by mannerheim »

p_j_w wrote: post #586
daveguy wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is not a US citizen.

The constitution is explicit when it carves out exemptions for citizens and non citizens. The first amendment is not one of them.

Case law does not protect non-citizens. People have been deported for being communists.

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

#869

Post by mannerheim »

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…

> At the end of the day, what this law is asking for is a Great Firewall around the US, that prohibits which websites its citizens can visit.

This law is asking for no such thing. Even if ByteDance refuses to sell TikTok, Americans would still be able to visit the site.

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

#870

Post by mannerheim »

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.

The content is not what is being outlawed, only the distribution mechanism. ISIS wouldn't be allowed to own a publishing company in America; nobody thinks that somehow curtails freedom of speech. If somebody so chooses, they could distribute content from ISIS, and restrictions on that would indeed be a restriction on speech. But it wouldn't be a restriction to make it illegal to give money to ISIS.
Post reply on HN