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

Post by zachmu » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 1:21 AM UTC

blowsand wrote: post #887

zachmu wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While you lost cred at “partially owned and controlled by the CCP”, I’ll bite. You seem to have knowledge that those at TikTok USDS (and TikTok Inc.) do not. Please share your data/sources on how the “CCP influences the content shown to American “zoomers””. There’s a similar operational and data island for UK TikTok users as part of project Clover. Share your data on how the CCP is manipulating content shown to UK us…

Post by aprilthird2021 » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 1:23 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #585

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That case found that you couldn't make a U.S. Person opt-in to receiving foreign propaganda, and for fairly obvious reasons I think. This case wouldn't have that problem.

Post by beej71 » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 1:29 AM UTC

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…

Post by rstuart4133 » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 1:30 AM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #662

DebtDeflation wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even just about propaganda. Watch Tik Tok videos in China and it's all young people helping the elderly, learning job skills, and doing other socially virtuous things. Watch Tik Tok videos outside of China and it's all videos of kids stealing cars, eating Tide pods, and pranking people in Home Depot.

Just to be clear, is this based on your own experience, or did you just see a video or news article (or other piece of propaganda) making this claim?

    As is the case with other social media platforms, TikTok is banned in China.

Post by aprilthird2021 » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 1:39 AM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #599

Miner49er wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. Yes, it does impinge free speech. It's not about being able to say things, it's about freedom to hear speech. The first amendment and freedom of speech also covers that, and there is speech on Tik Tok that is not available elsewhere.

As I said, they are not banning listening to the speech on Tik Tok videos. If someone makes a mirror of all TikTok videos and posts it on Peertube, it is totally fine to listen to it. They are banning one delivery mechanism. Not the content.