EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
1–10 of 350 posts
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#2[flagged]
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#3> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally.
These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature, increasingly so in the age of LLMs. They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astroturfing the platform and/or manipulating the algorithm (either through paid advertisements or by owning a platform and controlling the algorithm outright). They're places where a small minority of people can become an unstoppable movement that seems to have real support, sucking gullible voters in to join the growing "consensus".
In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent. The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#4[flagged]
ISP immunity has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which is a regulatory law having to do with foreign ownership of media corporations. In point of fact TikTok, like all ISPs, relies on section 230 safe harbor to serve their user-generated content without repercussion.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#5[flagged]
ISP immunity has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which is a regulatory law having to do with foreign ownership of media corporations. In point of fact TikTok, like all ISPs, relies on section 230 safe harbor to serve their user-generated content without repercussion.
Section 230 has nothing to do with ISPs
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#6Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some kind of signal.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISP immunity has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which is a regulatory law having to do with foreign ownership of media corporations. In point of fact TikTok, like all ISPs, relies on section 230 safe harbor to serve their user-generated content without repercussion.
Section 230 has nothing to do with ISPs
Presumably "provider of service" rather than "service provider"
ie
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by an other information content provider."
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#8I’m not sure what order things go in, but I’d have thought national security concerns trump the need of its’ citizens to freely watch cat videos Those people publishing to TikTok were probably on Instagram and if they weren’t, they will be now if they want to reach the same American audience.
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#9Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some kind of signal.
> “which would’ve led to the inescapable conclusion … had to be rejected as infringing … free speech”
When the EFF sounds about as sane as a sovereign citizen…
With friends like these, who needs enemies…
Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban
#10[flagged]