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

Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 273 posts

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#181

Post by dimmke »

paganel wrote: post #152
gruez wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is that really on the table? If yes, then it's bat-s*it insane, it's maybe rude to call it that but there's no better word to describe it. Not really. That might be the maximum sentence but the chance that a kid who's downloaded tiktok using a vpn of getting anywhere near that is near zero. See: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

I know that because of Aaron's tragic destiny, but I find that even a plea-induced 6-months sentence (let's say) is too much a punishment for having TikTok installed on your phone.

Uh yeah, I'd say even 1 day in jail or prison is too much of a punishment for having TikTok installed on your phone. This is fucking bonkers.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#182

Post by logicchains »

mistermann wrote: post #2

A big problem here is that when the government makes a classic public relations play like they did the first time around, they get utterly demolished by American TikTokers posting their propaganda on TikTok and brutally mocking it, and unlike all other platforms TikTok doesn't support easy censorship of such responses. I think if they were smart they'd be more low key and focus on censoring posts (which are now store…

TikTok already aggressively censors anything critical of the US establishment; it's much easier to find right-wing content on Facebook and X now than on TikTok.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#183

Post by digging »

rchaud wrote: post #148
usernomdeguerre wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.

National security arguments can only go so far without falling afoul of Constitutional principles. Earlier versions of this bill failed because their breadth made it clear it could be used in situations not involving China or other 'bad' tech actors. A blanket ban on "Chinese tech" is immeasurably broad, and would harm legitimate business interests. Should Microsoft, Cisco and Oracle stop doing business in the countr…

> Correspondingly, Tencent has holdings in many American companies, Reddit and Twitter being two. Should Reddit be forced to buy out their holdings?

I mean, yeah maybe. If there's a real national security risk it would make sense. Not that I think either of those companies are in any way trustworthy, but let's not compound the dangers to the public with CCP interference.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#184

Post by digging »

diogenes4 wrote: post #50
ejlxsh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t you ban an app based on purpose, “they’re using the app to spy on us”, and then case law applies it on an app by app basis?

Surely this would mostly apply to non-chinese companies, no? This would wipe the market out.

If only!

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#185

Post by digging »

wolverine876 wrote: post #108
standardUser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America it should not be "fine" to ban first and ask questions later. That's preposterous and sets a horrifying precedent. We're a trading nation, not a banning nation.

Also a free nation.

For certain definitions of free.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#186

Post by webninja »

rchaud wrote: post #160
duxup wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem as far as handling it like a trade issue. China doesn't allow such social media networks from the US. I got no problem banning theirs.

'Social Media' isn't a product category with safety and quality guidelines like agriculture or steel. It can't be banned on the basis of tit-for-tat without triggering a trade war blanket-banning a whole range of consumer software.

First, the trade war already started with China banning US companies domestically. Second, it’s not like the US can’t trade more with its South American neighbors instead anyways.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#187

Post by civilitty »

gruez wrote: post #156
calibas wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both." The lawmakers behind the bill assure us it will only be used against "corporations and executives who…

>The lawmakers behind the bill assure us it will only be used against "corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban — not everyday Americans". However, there's nothing in the bill that excludes "everyday Americans" from the penalties. It's slightly more complicated than that. As it stands right now it's unclear whether personal use of tiktok would violate the proposed law, because it on…

(IANAL but I've been involved in some legislative drafting) The vagueness is definitely a problem but all one needs to do is look at the split between the use of "entity" [1] and "person". The regulations are meant to apply to "entities" which doesn't include natural people - only firms, trusts, governments, etc. The criminal penalties apply to natural persons who act to violate the regulations on behalf of the entities.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#188

Post by pests »

gruez wrote: post #168
pests wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an example of an entity using laws to punish everyday people we thought might otherwise go unpunished.

1. There's a huge difference between a private entity launching civil lawsuits and the DoJ launching criminal lawsuits 2. I don't know what specific case you're referring to by "MPAA and RIAA [...] go after little old grandmas for their love savings", but the relevant laws likely predated mp3s and filesharing programs, so it's not clear how "we thought might otherwise go unpunished" would apply here. If anything it's…

I think you are looking too deeply into this.

1. When the comparison I'm trying to draw is "huge powerful entity using its power", what exactly is the difference?

2. I don't think there needs to be a specific case - it was in the news often enough for it to be a common thing. Here is an EFF article reviewing what happened years later:

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

"Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals. These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors"

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#189

Post by digging »

standardUser wrote: post #73
mschuster91 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if anyone explained what those risks are, and why they don't apply to Facebook et al. First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. When the Party comes knocking, there is no non-compliance to whatever they want. That alone is more than enough reason to be more skeptical of anything China. (Yes, I'm aware of FISA, but that's nowh…

> First of all, any company operating out of China can be assumed to be under more or less direct control of the CCP. Statements like that really make me question people's knowledge of basic history and international politics. Yes, a nation's major commercial actors often work in conjecture with their government. Is this news to anyone? This is not unique to China in the least. > The second difference/risk comes with…

> And this argument is so tired that it even has its own Wikipedia page explaining that it is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

That doesn't mean that threats to the well-being of children don't actually exist. Your blanket rejection is no better than the insincere use of TOTC.

Re: Lawmakers shift gears on TikTok ban

#190

Post by digging »

jasonlotito wrote: post #153
beachy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Targets them for what? Mind control? Attempts to change/form their views to be favourable towards dictatorships and antagonistic to democracies.

> Attempts to change/form their views to be favourable towards dictatorships and antagonistic to democracies. If that's the claim, the reality is they are doing the opposite. You need to provide proof, not speculation.

> If that's the claim, the reality is they are doing the opposite.

You need to provide proof

Post reply on HN