Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

cnbc.com

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#581
It sounds like they are just banning it from new installs on app stores, won't people just browse to the URL to use it?

The distinction between apps and websites seems arbitrary to me... especially since a huge fraction of apps seem to be effectively just a browser window with a single website locked in full screen.

I have never before used tiktok, but just now as an experiment I opened it in a browser and scrolled for a minute- I had no problem accessing an apparently endless stream of mostly young women jumping up and down without bras, and young men vandalizing automobiles.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#582

This is going to be an interesting experiment: A widely used social network across the world WITHOUT american content. Until now, the closest thing we had like this were national our regional networks like Russia's vk, but Vk was never truly popular outside Russian speaking countries. Now we, for the first time ever, will have the situation where a social network has global reach but without american content. Will it…

> This is going to be an interesting experiment: A widely used social network across the world WITHOUT american content. China has had such social networks for a long time. Their Weibo and Xiaohongshu are two prominent examples. Weibo started as a copycat of Twitter, but then beats Twitter hands-down with faster iterations, better features, and more vibrant user engagement despite the gross censorship imposed by the…

> creators may still flock to a credible TT-alternative for better monetization

Seems people are already mass migrating to Rednote. I’m not sure how that plays out though.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#584
I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In...)

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#586
post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

I'd use the term 'originalism' rather 'textualism', but you have a point. For 1st amendment cases, the court hasn't (yet) tried to use their new fangled originalist methodologies. In fact justice Gorsuch wrote separately in the Tiktok case to dig on the levels of scrutiny.

I think it's understandable, in a Chesterton's Fence sort of way - they better make sure that if they're going to start using a new methodology, it works better than what they use now, (these weird judge-created levels of scrutiny), but there's so much 1A precedent that is hard to be confident.

For 2nd amendment, they have used 'originalism' already. There isn't nearly as much precedent in that area, and so they were able to start more or less from scratch.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#588

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In... )

That's a great point. Hadn't thought about that angle

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#590
post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

"Shaky" compared to what?

Isn't the inquiry made MORE subjective by incorporating extratextual considerations?

Or do you just mean that textualism is oversold, and delivers less than it advertises?

Post reply on HN