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

211–220 of 350 posts

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

#211

Post by llamaimperative »

henrikschroder wrote: post #95
thehappypm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn’t TikTok just divest, then? Bytedance could make a huge amount of money by selling TikTok. And then that huge influx of money could keep TikTok operating forever. The fact that they’d rather shut down is pretty telling.

TikTok is outcompeting its US rivals Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts because their algorithm for choosing which videos to put in front of users is simply superior. Divesting means that they would need to sell that algorithm as well, which is pretty obviously worth a lot more than their US market, which is why they're making this decision.

lol, no it’s not. They’re making this decision because they’re ultimately controlled by the CCP which is not as susceptible to market forces.

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

#212

Post by lolinder »

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?

I'm not arguing against incorrect information being spread, I'm arguing against the existence of platforms that are specifically designed to drip feed people information that, true or not, changes their minds about something with a high degree of predictability.

Ad-funded algorithmic feeds exist to change people's behavior. They're indoctrination machines, ostensibly designed to sell products (which is supposedly a good thing in a capitalist world) but very easily turned to indoctrinating about anything else. I don't believe that indoctrination machines should be allowed to exist. We've proven how malleable people are in the face of these machines, and it's simply too much power to let any one entity hold, regardless of who it is in charge.

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

#213

Post by lolinder »

nextaccountic wrote: post #145
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…

How exactly does this differ from Facebook and Instagram?

I don't think it does, I think they all should be banned by the same reasoning.

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

#214

Post by lolinder »

blitzar wrote: post #187
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…

Now do twitter.

Agreed. And Facebook and Instagram. The US government appears to think that a US billionaire owning an algorithmic mind-shaper is fine, but I disagree.

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

#215

Post by herbst »

mshroyer wrote: post #208
herbst wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The distinction between an US firewall and a Chinese firewall?

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

#216

Post by thoroughburro »

petesergeant wrote: post #142
mmooss wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought. > couldn't Hypothetically, almost anything could happen.

> The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought. I read it every day and hadn't noticed. Can you give examples, beyond having heard of the Presidential Endorsement saga?

Sure! Here’s another that got wide attention, but many journalists have also left recently in quieter protest.

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quit...

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

#217

Post by lolinder »

logifail wrote: post #85
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…

> 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) Anyone willing to take a good-faith stab at why this couldn't equally well be a description of traditional media too - say - the WaPo?

I posted this elsewhere:

There's a major difference with the modern social media platforms, which is that the way in which they manufacture consent gives the illusion of popular consensus. That illusion makes them much more powerful than anything that came before, to the point where they are different in kind, not just in degree.

When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's position and a large social movement in favor of a particular political position. The same cannot be said for these platforms, which by design attempt to make you feel like you're interacting with a large number of real people who hold real opinions. They much more effectively become seen as peers, and from that position can much more effectively manipulate people.

The role of "influencer" is a thousand times more potent than anything that we had in the previous era, and that's without even getting into the possibility of creating hundreds of AI-powered sock puppets or of deliberately constructing an algorithm to put specific people into specific types of echo chambers.

At this point in the game, the only way to equate speech-by-corporations with democracy is to be willfully blind to this difference in kind. The very rich at this point don't just have a megaphone, they have a direct neural link into an enormous number of brains. That's not free speech, that's free votes.

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

#218

Post by beepbooptheory »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #27

I don't often disagree with the EFF. Strange times.

Well at least you can agree with both the state, and as it were at this point, the scary foreign state, on this one.. Probably worth more dollars to donuts to be on those sides anyway!

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

#219

Post by franga2000 »

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]

So let me get this straight - you want to go from a system where:

- the government hands out money to the media - the law says that they need to give it to everyone without political discrimination - if they try to withold funding, you can sue them and probably win

To a system where:

- if you have a ton of money, you can be a media outlet - if you don't have a ton of money, get fucked

I'm struggling to see how the latter is better for anyone other than rich people who want to influence the masses.

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

#220

Post by pastage »

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.

I actually agree that EU should pay more for the war being waged against Europe. I think it would put more pressure on the US to continue being a relevant party in the world politics. Honestly the fight in Ukraine is more important than every war the US has been a part of. ONLY because it is a war, if it was diplomacy that is another thing.

China, North Korea and Iran is supporting Russia in this, the US can choose what they want to do. Repeating 2014 seems like a bad idea.

Post reply on HN