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

241–250 of 350 posts

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

#241

Post by llamaimperative »

monocularvision wrote: post #234
llamaimperative wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you quote the extreme interpretation of the decision by the dissenters to describe what he believes as opposed to using his own words? Seems unfair.

Yes, I believe that in a court case, when someone says "what about Scenario X" and then you write an opinion that fails to preclude Scenario X, you are writing an opinion that can be criticized for allowing Scenario X.

Gorsuch saying "I am not considering Scenario X" does not actually mean his opinion precludes it. His opinion, as written, allows it.

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

#242

Post by llamaimperative »

braiamp wrote: post #203
llamaimperative wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, which is why "Justice XYZ agrees" does not (by itself) say anything at all about the moral or political valence of the decision.

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

#243

Post by llamaimperative »

ipython wrote: post #199
llamaimperative wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) No, Facebook does not confirm people’s real names 2) This isn’t a solution to vitriol, it’s a solution to inorganic amplification

They absolutely do require confirmation in some cases - https://www.facebook.com/help/1090831264320592 Of course that’s not foolproof and there are millions of bot accounts by facebooks own admission. But at the scale of billions of active users across the globe I’m not sure what approach could be 100%

> in some cases

some != all

therefore, it is not a real-name only network.

I'm not asking for Facebook to become a confirmed real-name only network. I am not asking for anyone to be compelled to supply a confirmed real-name only network.

I am saying: I wish that one existed and caught on with consumers.

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

#244

Post by froh »

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.

ccp bans certain brain rot contents which the algorithms hm happily spreads in the west.

the biggest problem for western competition (insta & co) is the dramatically "better" (more addictive) algorithm. But trump and Co happily use tiktok to grab power, see the most recent Romanian elections.

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

#245

Post by threatofrain »

llamaimperative wrote: post #25
threatofrain wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a trade war any company is fair game. A trade war thus naturally reaches across multiple values that a nation may hold, bringing them simultaneously under tension. Free speech is just a coincidence to the nature of TikTok, but what about cars, drones, phones, or even soybeans? When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national co…

What? You're musing that a fucking trade war could possibly be placed above freedom of speech? The answer of which "values" should win is 110% clear.

Do people have the prerogative to have successful industries? Do people have the prerogative to cheap energy, food, and other life basics? In the US, this is not actually enshrined anywhere, is it? The right to life simply means you roll the dice with life, doesn't it? One might say that even the beggars on the streets are enjoying their right to speech and life as we speak.

Are we afraid to list the topology of our values? A framework for comparing which values are actually superior? That's all I asked for.

Personally I think if China found the right narrative to pinpoint destroy Apple & Tesla, or moved too quickly to capture Taiwanese industry, then the US would seriously contemplate war.

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

#246

Post by uludag »

grumple wrote: post #223
uludag wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm definitely not saying that TikTok itself provides better checks and balances, but TikTok, in an ecosystem of other media providers under different governments, would be a much healthier for civil society. For example, US social media companies were vital in kicking off the Arab spring. How different would such movements be if they only had access to a media monoculture controlled by their respective regimes?

US social media companies contributing to widespread social unrest that ultimately led nowhere[0] or created more oppressive Islamic regimes and sectarian violence - well, this seems like an argument against TikTok, not for it. Despite any personal romanticism towards violent revolution you may have, that is not something that societies actually want against democracies. Even against authoritarian regimes, society of…

I totally agree that the Arab spring ended in near complete failure, and is not an ideal in and of itself, and violent revolution is in no way desirable for societies like the US. Maybe I should have connected the analogy fully:

Suppose that there was an issue that most citizens would normally feel very strongly about, but which benefits the state: war immediately comes to mind. There should be protests and (non-violent of course) civil unrest against wars the public feels to be unjust or immoral. Such demonstrations could easily be lulled in the right media environment, which is why alternative channels are important. I can easily imagine a future where TikTok is the premier dissonant chord against the drumming of war.

I'm not going to hide by biases here, I rather do romanticize popular anti-war movements.

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

#247

Post by llamaimperative »

threatofrain wrote: post #245
llamaimperative wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? You're musing that a fucking trade war could possibly be placed above freedom of speech? The answer of which "values" should win is 110% clear.

Do people have the prerogative to have successful industries? Do people have the prerogative to cheap energy, food, and other life basics? In the US, this is not actually enshrined anywhere, is it? The right to life simply means you roll the dice with life, doesn't it? One might say that even the beggars on the streets are enjoying their right to speech and life as we speak. Are we afraid to list the topology of our…

This is what you asked:

> When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national concerns?

The answer is simple: when economic world position is in conflict with the value of freedom of speech, then freedom of speech wins.

If you disagree you can go amend the Constitution accordingly.

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

#248

Post by threatofrain »

llamaimperative wrote: post #247
threatofrain wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people have the prerogative to have successful industries? Do people have the prerogative to cheap energy, food, and other life basics? In the US, this is not actually enshrined anywhere, is it? The right to life simply means you roll the dice with life, doesn't it? One might say that even the beggars on the streets are enjoying their right to speech and life as we speak. Are we afraid to list the topology of our…

This is what you asked: > When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national concerns? The answer is simple: when economic world position is in conflict with the value of freedom of speech, then freedom of speech wins. If you disagree you can go amend the Constitution accordingly.

The US constitution will absolutely permit war as a response to trade conflict. The US has already gone to war for such reasons with smaller countries.

We were speaking on the value of speech. What values should prompt us to send youths to die abroad? What does the constitution say about the hierarchy of values here? I'm just asking for a framework for determining which values are superior under conflict.

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

#249

Post by swed420 »

idle_zealot wrote: post #79
hx8 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame that this is true for many platforms. Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. The more people watch content the more it's shown to other people. Anyone's voice could be amplified in a way that was limited to broadcast networking and printing presses in the past. A million small conversations can occur in such a way that they create a chorus of discussion about public intere…

> Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. > Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. For a brief period we had some social media platforms that made gestures in the direction of free com…

> It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication.

Exactly.

It seems the only way to sidestep this growing problem is to create a profit free platform, and view it almost as a utility but is openly owned and controlled by "the people."

The vTaiwan and g0v ("gov zero") projects are relevant starter examples for a newer type of distributed governance:

https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/deconstructing-binary-ci...

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

#250

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

brookst wrote: post #235
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCC is a special cause because private entities are using a public resource that must be managed. The content controls were a way to prevent Hearst style journalism spreading to radio and television. It worked well until the era of entertainment news developed.

How about copyright infringement, false advertising, sharing classified documents, tobacco advertising? There are a LOT of special cases. Maybe there shouldn’t be and all of those things should be free from government interference, but the status quo is that plenty of speech is regulated.

Copyright enforcement is not a form of censorship.
Post reply on HN