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

201–210 of 350 posts

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

#201

Post by braiamp »

eastbound wrote: post #184
jazzyjackson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read what you quoted as a matter of fact statement, not an assertion of what is ethically righteous But with that, I don't agree that it's a fact, maybe the FCC regulates what you broadcast on radio and TV, but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is created or prompted AFAIK. Journalists in the press pool may trade subservience for access but that's about it.

[flagged]

No, I will shower you with good old capitalist critiques. The market is not all powerful. Market failures exists because not every market is capable of self-regulation. Some market players can and do abuse their market power. State intervention so that journalists, policeman, waste managers, water distributors, electricity distributors, internet providers, health care providers, health insurance providers, food producers, etc. can do their job effectively, because they provide needs that are too sensitive to leave to private self-interests. That's why many of those are subsidized _and_ regulated.

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

#202

Post by ipython »

fastball wrote: post #68
anramon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China doesn't pretend to be a democracy, so as they don't are nor pretend to be a democracy the rest of us should abandon democracy? Should be stop begin democratic because China isn't?

China absolutely does pretend to be a democracy. They call it a "whole-process democracy".

TIL. In 2021 the ccp released a white paper titled “China: democracy that works”

https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/202112/04/cont...

https://news.cgtn.com/news/whitepaper/China+Democracy+That+W...

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

#203

Post by braiamp »

llamaimperative wrote: post #195
ls612 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neil Gorsuch is though and he signed on too. He even said that while he thought the government had to prove a higher standard than the opinion required, it didn’t matter to the decision because the government in his mind had met that even higher standard anyway.

Neil “the President can use SEAL Team 6 to eliminate his political opponents” Gorsuch? He’s not a small government conservative, lol.

Pss, dude, nobody is small government anything. They are just want the regulation to apply in a manner that they are content with.

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

#204

Post by braiamp »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #138
phito wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, since when is TikTok decentralised?

The information is decentralized (a hundred million different sources...), just not the infrastructure.

The way that it is distributed is centralized and controlled by a single party. You can generate content all day, but unless the algorithm pick you up and make you popular, your content may as well not exists.

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

#205

Post by whamlastxmas »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #155
braiamp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a better way: privacy laws. The US government decided not to use it.

Privacy legislation isn't going to happen because it's too late. It's now an industry, with enough companies with enough employees and, more importantly, enough political and economic power to destroy almost any attempts to push legislation that may actually protect privacy in any real way. But, honestly, I don't think the TikTok ban has any overlap with privacy concerns. It's pure cold war.

It’s less Cold War and more population control. The US government refuses to allow for communist sympathizing or class consciousness, and there’s a lot of that on TikTok.

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

#206

Post by pastage »

eastbound wrote: post #184
jazzyjackson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read what you quoted as a matter of fact statement, not an assertion of what is ethically righteous But with that, I don't agree that it's a fact, maybe the FCC regulates what you broadcast on radio and TV, but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is created or prompted AFAIK. Journalists in the press pool may trade subservience for access but that's about it.

[flagged]

Easiest way to spot an authorian is the complaining something is not democratic while also spending time promoting antidemocratic messages.

It is a cop out. I do not believe everyone who argue against some of my views are against everyone of them. I have no idea of what part of the far right pleases you, but the point about a democracy is that nothing is fixed everything ebbs and flows. This is something conservative people have a hard time with, and when the leftwings ebbs they have a hard time.

The media is not left wing. It might be more left than the far right, but it is also along way from the far left.

Just be honest about your ideas and intentions, do not blame others for your failures.

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

#207

Post by tzs »

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?

Reciprocity would be that American companies can access the Chinese market if they obey the same rules in the Chinese market that Chinese companies have to obey in the Chinese market, and Chinese companies can access the American market if they obey the same rules in the American market that American companies have to obey in the American market.

Facebook and others were in the Chinese market but they got blocked because they would not censor things that the Chinese government wanted censored and would not turn over user information that the government asked for. Chinese social media companies also are subject to those same censorship and user disclosure requirements, and will be banned (or worse) if they do not comply.

Would Facebook be allowed back in if they agreed to the censoring and to turning over user information? As far as I know none of the major American social media companies have been willing to do so, and so we don't know.

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

#208

Post by mshroyer »

herbst wrote: post #173
dzogchen wrote: post #91

Extremely weak argument. Just because one platform is shut down does not mean the right to free speech is affected. A platform, mind you, under full control by the Chinese Communist Party, who do not allow ANY form of free speech to exist in the country they have under their thumb.

Building your own great Firewall definitely is a thread to your free speech. I don't know how this can't be extremely obvious.

It's because this isn't a content restriction. Anything that was speakable on TikTok remains speakable on platforms that aren't owned by U.S. adversaries.

The distinction between this and China's "great firewall" and speech restrictions should be obvious.

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

#209

Post by llamaimperative »

ipython wrote: post #28
llamaimperative wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d have thought national security concerns trump the need of its’ citizens to freely watch cat videos You'd be wrong. What value would a concept like the First Amendment have if it were voidable as easily as "we have national security concerns" or "the information on there isn't valuable." Given that those are pretty much the immediate go-to excuses for any autocrats clamp down on speech, such a right would be tot…

However forcing TikTok to divest of foreign ownership is not restricting the rights of Americans to express their opinions. Americans are free to widely exercise their first amendment rights- the TikTok order to divest foreign ownership doesn’t affect those users ability to speak. The first amendment does not guarantee you access to a specific platform- it means that the bar for the government to imprison you for spe…

Forcing American companies not to put an app on their marketplace is impinging their speech. And yes, they do have First Amendment protections.

No, the First Amendment doesn’t just prevent the government from imprisoning you for speech… that is a ridiculously narrow perspective and really discredits you on the matter.

The First Amendment, as a trivial example, prevents the government from fining you for speech. It prevents the government from threatening to imprison you for speech. It prevents the government from seizing your assets for speech.

FWIW, I’m not arguing that TikTok shouldn’t be banned. I think it’s a propaganda weapon. However it is far from clear that it can be banned under our Constitution. Especially since the mechanics of that ban require coercing American companies and individuals to limit their freedom of expression.

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

#210

Post by beepbooptheory »

munchler wrote: post #49
hedora wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph of the EFF statement says the ban provides insufficient protection of US security.

> The United States’ foreign foes easily can steal, scrape, or buy Americans’ data by countless other means. True, but that's not the point. > 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. Sorry, that might've been true for old media…

So is it that it's not antidemocratic now because of new media, or is it antidemocratic but thats ok because of new media?
Post reply on HN