Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 110 posts

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #14
RandomLensman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?

I think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies.

> think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies

Source?

Section 310 of the Communications Act, which bars licenses from being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof,” was written in 1934 [1]. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed in 1938 in response to (slash fear of) Nazi propaganda [2].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310

[2] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/propaganda-and-the...

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#22

Post by neilv »

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app,

There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down.

Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "If anyone's going to beat up my kids, it'll be me!"

Sounds like US Big Tech might've decided on the complaint angle of "some other country could spy on people" -- since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products.

Outlaw the irresponsible behaviors, not the competition.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#23

Post by orhmeh09 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13
delichon wrote: post #2

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?

> requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners? By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.) [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...

Yes, as you have just shown, there is a category of "preferred owners."

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#24

Post by JumpCrisscross »

neilv wrote: post #22

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "I…

> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products

Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China.

If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote).

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#25

Post by JumpCrisscross »

incomingpain wrote: post #20

>consider the legal challenges to a new law requiring China-based ByteDance to divest TikTok's U.S. assets by Jan. 19 or face a ban. This legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan supported and placed under national security, in an election year, whose court case will happen by Dec. 6 in order to seek review from the Supreme Court if needed before Jan 19th ban. But the election is 1 month prior. That this most likely…

> But the election is 1 month prior

Which means the public can make it an issue if it wants to.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#26

Post by JumpCrisscross »

orhmeh09 wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners? By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.) [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...

Yes, as you have just shown, there is a category of "preferred owners."

> there is a category of "preferred owners."

There isn’t. There is a category of foreign adversaries. It’s negative selection, not positive. “Preferred owners” would be the U.S. government requiring joint venturing with a hand-picked JV partner. Like Beijing.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#27

Post by whimsicalism »

jncfhnb wrote: post #12
delichon wrote: post #2

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?

The first amendment says nothing about ownership of the press.

Sure, the first amendment doesn't say much in general - but ownership of the press laws almost certainly impact on the 1A as interpreted today.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#28

Post by [deleted] »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #18
RandomLensman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?

Yes, but the law specifically refers to companies that hold a broadcast license. Of course, the law was written in 1934 so they could challenge TikTok based not on the letter of the law but on the spirit of the law. But, case precedence is also not in their favor as they approved a 100% foreign ownership of a media company in 2017.

[deleted]

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#29

Post by incomingpain »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
incomingpain wrote: post #20

>consider the legal challenges to a new law requiring China-based ByteDance to divest TikTok's U.S. assets by Jan. 19 or face a ban. This legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan supported and placed under national security, in an election year, whose court case will happen by Dec. 6 in order to seek review from the Supreme Court if needed before Jan 19th ban. But the election is 1 month prior. That this most likely…

> But the election is 1 month prior Which means the public can make it an issue if it wants to.

>Which means the public can make it an issue if it wants to.

That's what I'm saying, it's highly probable that it will be.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#30

Post by ARandomerDude »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13
delichon wrote: post #2

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?

> requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners? By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.) [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...

Come on, spend 5 more minutes thinking about this.

Phase 1: restricted if from China

Phase 2: restricted if influenced by China

Phase 3: restricted if sympathetic to China

Phase 4: China isn’t the only bad thing for America. If you have the following ideas, those are just as dangerous. “Speech is violence.” Also “silence is violence.”

This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times.

Post reply on HN