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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by r00fus »

eppp wrote: post #713
groggo wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is there's not really that much propaganda on TikTok, much less pro-CCP. Sure there's the potential, but it's really not even much of a thing IRL.

It doesnt have to be pro CCP. All they have to do is slightly boost anti US or anti Israel or anti Ukraine and it is the same thing. Slowly boiling the frog by boosting fringe voices and promoting them as common views.

Lots of people in the US are anti-Israel and anti-Ukraine spending. Many are also against the current US government's actions.

Are they "pro-CCP"? Honestly, you think anyone who disagrees with the regime are tankies?

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

#872

Post by [deleted] »

dbspin wrote: post #125
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why shouldn’t Europeans do the same with US social networks then? We’re not your foreign adversary? (If we are, we shouldn’t have an obligation to defend you.) This bill permits TikTok’s sale to a European owner. It just bans its ownership by a foreign adversary country.

You're not a foreign adversary - you're a colonial overlord. If a European or other US 'ally' nation attempts to act against American 'national interest' their government is swiftly toppled - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the... More often they don't get elected at all due to coordinated media campaigns influencing elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_K... Th…

[deleted]

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

#873

Post by cryptonector »

esoterica wrote: post #696
cryptonector wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens? The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.

> If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens?

I was not stating an opinion as to which way it should be. I was describing reality, and stating that I'm not sure which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to foreigners and which don't.

"Inalienable rights" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution, and the courts hold the Declaration of Independence to have no legal force whatsoever. Where I was talking about actual jurisprudence (like it or not), you seem to be attacking a straw man.

> The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen,

Yes, but within some pretty tight limits. Persons born on U.S. soil to persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. have birthright citizenship, and this cannot be taken away by statutes or bureaucratic acts. Others can naturalize according to statutes.

> which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.

It wouldn't be a country if everyone in the world had all the same rights as the country's citizens. Some rights have to be reserved to the citizens. De minimis the right to permanently reside and vote in that country. If you don't have a right to reside permanently in some country, then there must be other things which you are not allowed to do in that country.

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

#874

Post by harkinian »

orangecat wrote: post #845
Miner49er wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can't tell if the new company would be able to host the same exact material. It's already come out that the White House pressured Google and Facebook to promote covid19 vaccine content. YouTube banning Russia-linked channels doesn't seem like their own decision either. The US doesn't control its media nearly the same way many other countries do, but there's still some control.

If you look at the rhetoric of lawmakers and lobbyists supporting the ban, a lot of it is about the content.

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

#875

Post by nozzlegear »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #258
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why shouldn’t Europeans do the same with US social networks then? We’re not your foreign adversary? (If we are, we shouldn’t have an obligation to defend you.) This bill permits TikTok’s sale to a European owner. It just bans its ownership by a foreign adversary country.

Gangs also offer to "defend" local businesses from other gangs.

And friends offer to help friends. Enough of this nefariousness.

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

#876

Post by seoulmetro »

nexuist wrote: post #744
segasaturn wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a mistake for TikTok to ask Americans to participate in their representative democracy? Do we not remember when Google and Facebook blacked out their sites to stop SOPA from passing, how is TikTok's notification any different?

Do you not see the difference in American companies asking Americans to pressure their American representatives on American legislature, vs. a Chinese company doing this? If Google tried to do the same thing in China when the CCP were debating banning YouTube their mainland employees would have been arrested and "disappeared."

Either you don't understand that American problems flow overseas or are just naive. American problems get exported en mass to other people via social media and the tech people still continue to flood with visuals on them regardless of where you are.

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

#877

Post by seoulmetro »

basisword wrote: post #143

I'm interested to see how this plays out. TikTok is popular enough that I can imagine it's making enough money outside the US to just let them ban it and not sell. The whole thing is interesting to watch from a non-China/US perspective. It feels like a move to make the US government look strong to its citizens. A move that, unusually, can have bipartisan support. It feels like propaganda really. And judging by the co…

China beat them at their own game so now they want to take the ball and run home.

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

#878

Post by seoulmetro »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #210
basisword wrote: post #143

I'm interested to see how this plays out. TikTok is popular enough that I can imagine it's making enough money outside the US to just let them ban it and not sell. The whole thing is interesting to watch from a non-China/US perspective. It feels like a move to make the US government look strong to its citizens. A move that, unusually, can have bipartisan support. It feels like propaganda really. And judging by the co…

Idk, every person I talk to thinks it's crazy that the US is this close to banning an app because it doesn't like the content. The idea that Americans aren't allowed to view "propaganda" is insane and very against the ideas of free speech. But I come online and there's so much support for banning an app who hires lots of devs in Silicon Valley itself...

Americans are conditioned to relish double standards.

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

#879

Post by neetdeth »

karaterobot wrote: post #533
iza wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* You don't believe China should be an "adversary"

I tried to keep my description vague and not specific to China. I agree that it's relevant whether China is or is not an adversary, and that China is the obvious proximate target of this legislation. Is your point to say that you specifically don't believe China is an adversary, thus the bill is off the mark? I could read your item as saying either that, or this: in order to promote better relations between adversari…

Let’s all keep in mind that “adversaries” are just regular countries that some people in government have decided are a competitive threat or strategic obstacle. This is, frankly, bullshit.

If you want to declare a country an enemy of the United States and cut off my ability to access information from that country, you should have the fortitude to declare war. Otherwise I’m not interested in the opinion of some bureaucrat at State, thank you very much.

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

#880

Post by harkinian »

AlbertCory wrote: post #556
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 argument is that they are an enemy. No other argument is necessary. Not free speech, not reciprocity, not that they're an oppressive government. If in 1939 Hitler had tried to buy the CBS radio network, FDR would have stopped him, or the Congress. If it had required a Constitutional amendment, that would have passed easily. Yet we were not at war with Germany (yet).

We aren't at war with China either.
Post reply on HN