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

Why we are suing the Administration

newsroom.tiktok.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#261

Post by fvv »

hobofan wrote: post #245
fvv wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freedom can only start with free speech and can only start dying with censorship, you tell me now .. puns are fun but lead nowhere if you want to talk seriously

So which flavor of free speech[0] is good enough for you? Which countries pass the threshold? I know that the free speech we have in Germany is probably not good enough for most US people that are keen on free speech, but it's good enough for me (mostly). When someone calls on the "free world", it has mostly become a US patriotism dog whistle to me without any deeper meaning. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo…

it's not all black or white, but I can tell which gray is close to white and which is close to black, and you?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#262

Post by mixedCase »

pwinnski wrote: post #214
User23 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress and state legislatures can and should fix this.

Should fix... how? Companies should be compelled to provide a platform for free expression, and forbidden from removing any content, no matter how objectionable? It's unclear to me what you're suggesting.

Not the GP, but I'm thinking you could have a system where instead of centralized control, as a user you can subscribe to blocklists provided by the company as well as community-made ones. These would be tasked with the regulation of legal speech, and providing a framework for these lists would be a requirement to be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if you meet certain requirements; while illegal speech can still be controlled under traditional centralized moderation.

Not sure how legislation would define the requirements for something like this. What would metrics would signal that a platform to have to comply with the regulation? (MAUs?, revenue?, surely having moderation, but should certain kinds of moderation like removing botspam count?) Should a provider be able to silently set-up default lists for new users or should they be prompted? Should the company be required to break down blocklists among different topics (spam/pornography/depictions of violence/a goose with a campfire in the background) and how should the boundaries of topics be defined if so? What kind of functionality should be considered the bare minimum for a framework to build community-curated blocklists?

Mind you, I still am not sure regulation is the way to go. But the truth is that these platforms wield a scary amount of power over the psyche of people to extents that would've made the Stasi drool all over the place, and it does have the ability of corrupting democracy far more than biased TV channels and newspapers since it's no longer Fox News or CNN presenting you something, it's your own acquaintances that get some of their voices artificially boosted while some others are silenced; literally distorting a huge amount of voters' own grasp on reality.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#263

Post by sudosysgen »

temp1892232323 wrote: post #221

In a world full of shady companies, I would much rather bacl companies like FB than companies like TikTok backed by the Chinese government. Even with all the flaws that the US government and various US companies have, they're so much better in terms of transparency and regulation than their chinese counterparts.

Idk, the lead up to the Iraq War was the polar opposite of transparency and now one million people are dead.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#264

Post by LatteLazy »

rchaud wrote: post #209
LatteLazy wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crazy thing is, I'd actually support real action on China. The CCP are a problem I feel we have been ignoring for too long. Instead, everything trump has done has been carefully designed NOT to actually change anything except to produce headlines in both countries and try to make more people indebted or reliant on his administration and strengthen the hand of the CCP. Of course, we're now deep into my opinions :)

"real action" on China would require the hard work of making the case to the 100m American TT users, building a bipartisan consensus, and passing a bill. The current administration has no intention of doing any of that. Attemping to rule by decree is easier and makes for immediate headlines. By the time the executive order gets thrown out in court, plenty of political hay has been made among the party faithful. And w…

That's roughly my expectation too, though there is a chance the order will stand: courts are surprisingly accepting of "we can't tell you, national security" as long as the order is quite narrow. An order only targeting TT might well be acceptable to a sufficiently disinterested judge.

Either way, the CCP will continue (or even intensify) it's activities, Trump will rally the faithful and someone will probably make a few billion for nothing more than already having a few billion and being in the right place at the right time.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#265

Post by mattmanser »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #228
mcny wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free Expel Spain from the EU. Economic blockade. Whatever it takes. At least the UK held a referendum on Scotland. Fake promises and all but we can't jail dissidents just because they try to form a separate country in today's world.

The ship sailed long ago on the EU being anything but corrupt at this point for me when they continuously flirted the idea of Turkey being invited in, extend protected statuses in trade arrangements, and do nothing to help their actual members, like Greece, against the war games and provocations that occur on an almost weekly basis in the Aegean. Once again, it's all in the name of the oil.

The world is grey, not black and white.

These are collectives of politicians, who have a huge number of difficult problems to solve and limited means of solving them. They have conflicting, national, local and, yes, some personal demands. A mass of conflicting ideology, with varying levels of diligence, ethics and greed.

Expecting absolute morals is expecting the impossible.

Compared to virtually any government in history, and most governments today, the EU is far, far from corrupt. Yes there is corruption. But no government has no corruption.

And it's certainly not helpful, or thruthful, to use silly rhetoric like 'The ship sailed long ago on the EU being anything but corrupt'.

That is a lie, and I can only hope you are adult enough to admit it is one.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#266

Post by [deleted] »

kolla wrote: post #95
pryce wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am coming to believe that what we are seeing is a kind of "race" to see which aspiring superpowers will eventually control (or own) the main companies that are intentionally the most successful in invading the privacy of citizens. People can only inhabit a finite number of social media networks, and there can eventually only be a fairly small number of big players in a position to produce massively detailed rich pr…

Feels more like companies own the aspiring superpowers with all the lobbying going around in the US.

[deleted]

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#267

Post by smolder »

kolla wrote: post #95
pryce wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am coming to believe that what we are seeing is a kind of "race" to see which aspiring superpowers will eventually control (or own) the main companies that are intentionally the most successful in invading the privacy of citizens. People can only inhabit a finite number of social media networks, and there can eventually only be a fairly small number of big players in a position to produce massively detailed rich pr…

Feels more like companies own the aspiring superpowers with all the lobbying going around in the US.

The government was supposed to represent people, but since we made corruption legal, its mainly accountable to money. Corporations and the government alike are therefore controlled by those with wealth and intent. They're two sides of the same coin.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#268

Post by sandworm101 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #230
phkahler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. If you don't like your bridge club or church, pick a different one. But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government.

This has been hashed out many times. Government cannot be allowed to use private companies as a shield. For instance (this has been tried in the US/canada/uk etc) can a city violate the rights of citizens if it hires a "private" company to conduct policing? Can a city ban certain people from walking the streets if it puts those streets in the hands of a "private" holding company?

So what if the government partners with all the large tech companies to have them voluntarily enforce restrictions on speech? Oh, you're free to say whatever you want, just not online. Or on the airwaves. Or in public parks, which were recently put in control of a private management company too. You are free to stand in your bedroom and talk to the wall. Just don't talk loud enough that your corporate landlord kicks you out for a noise violation.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#269

Post by ideals »

kube-system wrote: post #260
phkahler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…

The person you are responding to didn’t make a first amendment argument, or say anything about the US. They are saying that people outside of China should take a stand against China’s lack of respect for speech rights, rather than playing along with it for profit.

The USG doesn't respect speech rights of it's citizens either so idk where this grandstanding keeps coming from that we're still the champion of free speech when every night police beat and pepper spray people for exercising those rights.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#270

Post by dalbasal »

gostsamo wrote: post #192
dalbasal wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. That might become a problem, or be a problem in places... but it's not the problem. The primary problems (IMO) are: (1) Influence of multinational interest. Regulation could literally half FB's EU revenue without being very radical, for example. (2) Lack of polity. The EU parliament is a clown house and becoming worse. There is no political public discourse around it. It doesn't have power. Voters use it…

Well, the Euro Commission is nominated by the state governments and only approved by the EP. Every decision of the EP could be blocked from the euro council which is again formed by the state leaders. Do you see a pattern here or something? I know that Daily Mail and the like love to hate Brussels but Brussels is only what it is let to be.

> I know that Daily Mail and the like love to hate Brussels but Brussels is only what it is let to be.

That's trite, and insulting.

Post reply on HN