TikTok is NOT being banned. TikTok can continue unmodified if it transfers ownership to anyone outside China.
Like a Russian oligarch?
Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
111–120 of 146 posts
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#112If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. Wha…
The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Bytedance, as a Chinese company, is required by law (Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China) to provide full data access to the Chinese government on request, and they are compelled not to reveal when this occurs. Since this is done through legitimate channels (on Bytedance's side), this won't even be caught with an audit. So you have a situation wh…
>The forced divestment is for national security reasons.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#113If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. Wha…
I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to…
China is classified as a foreign adversary, so this goes beyond trade policy. Foreign adversaries show a pattern of conduct that threaten national security. People are not comfortable with foreign adversaries having a direct line to our youth's attention and having their finger on the dial.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question wasn't about party lines. It's about the distinction between political judgment and legal judgment. That has nothing to do with partisanship. > Also the constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to conduct federal elections This is literally not true. Please tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is given this authority. You won't find it, which is why all the contor…
>This is literally not true. Please tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is given this authority. You won't find it, which is why all the contortions around federal authority are political in nature and not legal. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio... Section 5 gives congress the power, not the state, to enfo…
Whoa whoa, what you said is "the constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to conduct federal elections, not states." This is blatantly false. I presume you discovered that when you looked it up and now you're switching gears.
Now you're mounting a totally different argument which is that Congress has the power to enforce Section 3. This is true, but that does not strip states of power to run their own elections how they see fit. This merely grants power to Congress to enforce Section 3.
You just misunderstand how the Constitution works.
Here's proof: The Constitution does not give states the power to pass laws. It does give Congress the power to pass laws. It giving Congress the power to pass laws obviously does not strip states of their power to pass their own laws.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decision to ban Colorado from making its own decisions for its own election with regard to what "engaged in insurrection" means and therefore disqualifies someone from their own state's ballots. Purely political. The law says clearly that states run their own elections and it says clearly that insurrection is disqualifying. Would've been politically inconvenient though (for either side of the spectrum, and especi…
OK I'll have a read of "23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024)"
Cool! Be sure to pay attention to this part:
> "Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns... state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer"
That's a political consideration, not a legal one.
> "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up."
That's a political consideration, not a legal one.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to…
[flagged]
That’s asinine. Every nation responds to things such as tariffs with a proportional response.
We have plenty of evidence that the U.S. has been harmed with our open approach to unfettered access to our electronic systems. Meanwhile our geopolitical adversaries have no qualms about fire walling their citizens from accessing foreign networks at all.
This is a clear case where the U.S. should treat them as they treat us. IMO any 1st amendment arguments are made in bad faith because there are no shortages of non-hostile channels for Americans to speak freely and openly.
Does anyone else remember “free speech zones” from the Iraq War era? Where was this argument then?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Bytedance, as a Chinese company, is required by law (Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China) to provide full data access to the Chinese government on request, and they are compelled not to reveal when this occurs. Since this is done through legitimate channels (on Bytedance's side), this won't even be caught with an audit. So you have a situation wh…
Meta & co are required by US law to do the same for people in the rest of the world. Didn't see a huge US outcry about that, in fact I saw a lot of hate for things like GDPR
The hate for the GDPR I read of is actually about the "allow cookie" popups that aren't needed at all are are just a form of protest by those individual sites because they are storing and selling personal information including IP addresses.
If you aren't engaged in those practices then there's no need for any GDPR annoyances for users.
I may misunderstand, I'm in America currently.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#118If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. Wha…
I do have children in that age range and see US social media damaging them. Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?
> Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?
I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened yet, although those companies are also willing to adjust policies in foreign nations—for instance, Meta saying it won't eliminate fact checking outside of the US.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That’s asinine. Every nation responds to things such as tariffs with a proportional response. We have plenty of evidence that the U.S. has been harmed with our open approach to unfettered access to our electronic systems. Meanwhile our geopolitical adversaries have no qualms about fire walling their citizens from accessing foreign networks at all. This is a clear case where the U.S. should treat them as they treat us…
Wait, so your position is that the US is harmed by being the global master of the internet (through companies like Meta that are synonymous with the internet in some places in the world) and that we should build the great American firewall to keep our internet in and other's out?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#120I think the times have changed. The Great Powers of the world are becoming more hostile to each other yet we continue to operate the naive way. We play by the rules but our rivals have no rules. This makes us weak, exploitable and ineffective.
As such, I support the ban, for the sake of doing something. I admit it's not ideal but we live in a messy and tense world. User's speech isn't really taken away, just use another dopamine feed. Better yet: use none.
You'll find it's in particular activists protesting this move.