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

EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 350 posts

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#161

Post by jazzyjackson »

gunian wrote: post #158
jazzyjackson wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree USA was pulling for the revolutionaries, and making sure the powers that be couldn't snuff out all communications was essential in throwing the fight, I just don't believe in inception as far as inspiring a revolt in the first place. I mention 4chan because I thought it synonymous with anonymous, and I was wondering what you knew that I didn't re: what hacking was happening. And yes Mobutu with his…

The leopard hat was indeed the best :) I didn't know anonymous was active on 4chan it's kind of uncomfortable for people of my ilk to be there so I avoid but that kind of checks out Do you think there is/was any advantage to having a group labelled as a freedom fighter / vigilante perform hacking operations as opposed to official state actors during color revolutions?

I guess I'm thinking of the Guy Fawkes era. I'm scarcely aware of what anonymous means outside of what was reported in mainstream media about it. Now that I think of it that too was a case of one group choosing not to correct anyone when credited with the accomplishments of somebody else. They would produce all these cringe videos about how any day now they'd spill the beans on the powers that be. Kind of a WikiLeaks fan club more than anything.

But you, then, were referencing some other front in the info war with folks that had access to higher tier tools than a Low Orbit Ion Cannon?

And yes plausible deniability goes a long way, perhaps even enabling people to collaborate when they may otherwise be on opposing "sides" as far as states are concerned.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#162

Post by suraci »

onei wrote: post #98
tmnvdb wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are glancing over the fact that American media platforms are not really controlled by the US government except for legal restrictions on hate speech and violence, and that there is an extremely diverse set of voices that can be heard on the 'American' (or rather non-Chinese) internet. It is also not clear to me how TikTok is supposed to provide better "checks and balances" just because it is owned and manipulated…

Is Tiktok genuinely manipulated by the CCP? I could never quite tell if that was merely scaremongering and hypothesising by American politicians, or based on evidence of past transgressions.

> Is Tiktok genuinely manipulated by the CCP

I can't say it's not at all

But I can say it's far beyond CPC's capability, Americans like talking abt CPC like it's some kind of secret darkness powerful villain in Gotham City, no, it's not that good.

If CPC executed any order to a company operated in US by Americans, there'll be clear and strong evidence about it, CPC is not good at hiding schemes, if you didn't see such evidence, it means there's no such thing, at least for now

I've talked abt how CPC doing propaganda, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42429769

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#163

Post by Retric »

sfjailbird wrote: post #147
lolinder wrote: post #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 astrot…

The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. What's next? Should we prevent giving air time to people from 'adversarial' countries at all? Or only allow it when accompanied by a sanctioned commentary to 'correct' any unwanted information? While we're at it, how about 'adversarial' parties within our own country? Why should they be allowed to mislead gullible people?

Making things up is inherently vastly cheaper than flighting misinformation.

Spreading misinformation takes nothing more than being persuasive. Being able to pick and choose stuff out of context or even just say anything without a shred of support makes hours of “content” easy.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#164

Post by troupo »

sfjailbird wrote: post #147
lolinder wrote: post #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 astrot…

The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. What's next? Should we prevent giving air time to people from 'adversarial' countries at all? Or only allow it when accompanied by a sanctioned commentary to 'correct' any unwanted information? While we're at it, how about 'adversarial' parties within our own country? Why should they be allowed to mislead gullible people?

> The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it.

We've seen how well it worked with Fox News, ONN, Alex Jones...

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#165

Post by herbst »

quanto wrote: post #123
fulafel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that such a tool is in a foreign country's arsenal is itself a massive danger to America's national security This implies people outside the US should relate the same way to Meta, X, etc. (Which seems fine to me, just pointing it out)

yes, and they do. Even the US allies in Europe don't completely trust the US with their citizens data, hence the on-shore data requirements. This is despite the US is footing the bill for Ukraine and, by extension, defending Europe right now.

> This is despite the US is footing the bill for Ukraine and, by extension, defending Europe right now.

Things like this is exactly why we don't trust US media and data management. This is only just enough close to the truth so it doesn't sound absolutely absurd but still is so far from it.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#166

Post by gazchop »

Urgh sorry EFF but you’ve lost me on this one.

There is actual harm done to democracy on these platforms. A democracy requires informed voters to function and the platform does the diametric opposite by misinforming them. Any attempt to regulate this or promote or moderate has failed simply because an actual structured funding source is misinformation. The only option to keep democracy standing is to kill it.

I’d expect the EFF to have some well read social or political staff. Apparently they don’t and are quite happy to spout absolutes.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#167

Post by herbst »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #149

There are many good reasons to ban TikTok. For example, reciprocity on free trade. Why should Chinese companies get access to the American market when no western social media apps are allowed in China?

Isn't that pure whataboutism?

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#168

Post by fweimer »

mmooss wrote: post #108
uludag wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically this is exactly why I think TikTok is so important. Obviously every media site is used for manufacturing content, from NYT to Facebook. Also, obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted. Wouldn't it be good then to have checks and balances to this, by having media not under the US government supervision? Unless are you suggesting that the US government doesn't misinform the pu…

> obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted That's not at all obvious to me. On what grounds, moral or legal, should the US government tell anyone what to publish or promote?

It can make laws that prohibit or discourage publishing certain content. It can also shape the discourse in such a way that these laws are not viewed as restrictions on free speech.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#169

Post by petre »

lolinder wrote: post #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 astrot…

Precisely how Russia tainted the Romanian presidential elections using Tiktok dormant accounts to hijack another PR campaign.

I'm with the SCotUS on this.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#170

Post by Etheryte »

quanto wrote: post #123
fulafel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that such a tool is in a foreign country's arsenal is itself a massive danger to America's national security This implies people outside the US should relate the same way to Meta, X, etc. (Which seems fine to me, just pointing it out)

yes, and they do. Even the US allies in Europe don't completely trust the US with their citizens data, hence the on-shore data requirements. This is despite the US is footing the bill for Ukraine and, by extension, defending Europe right now.

European nations have provided more aid to Ukraine in total in both absolute and relative terms than the US. Hopefully the irony isn't lost on you when we're talking about controlling the narrative here.
Post reply on HN