Why we are suing the Administration • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#281

Post by vimy » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

mellow2020 wrote: post #257

zaxu wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The catalonian government, which is an autonomous community of Spain, held a referendum to secede. The Spanish shut down polling stations, but they declared independence anyways, so the central government implemented direct rule and arrested the separatist politicians responsible for it.

So what you're saying is, when I post that Catalonia should be free and go on holiday in Spain, no spooks would follow me around, and no pressure would be put on German companies to fire me, and this isn't even remotely comparable.

7 elected politicians and 2 leaders of the independence movement have been arrested and convicted for the ‘crime’ of holding a referendum. Up to 13 years in prison.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#282

Post by count » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

badRNG wrote: post #178

ArchD wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current ar…

>Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Yes I am. My concerns center the precedent of banning software. If banning software to further the interests of national security is established as a precedent, it is re…

They're not banning the software. They're banning doing business with ByteDance. If no money or contract is executed, you aren't covered. It's ByteDance that chooses to enforce a ToS and have a contract - they could put the code and app up for download with no money changing hands, and it'd be fine. This is importantly different. Not saying it's right or wrong, just specifically different.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#283

Post by yourapostasy » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #202

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

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…

There are a few areas of regulated speech even in government-involved First Amendment scenarios [1].

It is true that private entities can kick out individuals for utterances found disagreeable. But what if those private entities are practically extensions of those in government positions, working closely with them? During the Framers' time, the proto-US did not have the equivalent of the Dutch East India Company, considered the most valuable company of all time [2].

At what point does a private entity grow so powerful that its private views applied in its selection of who to engage with turn into persecution of the kind that informed the separation of church and state principle [3]? I'd like to get a specialist historian's (specializing in the Framers' discussions) take on this, because I find it interesting that they were all very likely well aware of the Dutch East India Company, yet they did not find it a compelling enough entity to elevate to the level of the separation principle. So I have to wonder: what did they believe was the countervailing force against such a behemoth private entity's selection pressure turning into outright persecution?

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/g...

[2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-valuable-companies-all...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#284

Post by beefield » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

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.

> But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government.

I am not sure if I am attacking a straw man here, but it sure sounds like you claim that buying one way flight ticket is very difficult compared to getting rid of FAAMG in your life?

I understand there are other complications involved in moving abroad that just the flight ticket, but I still think that the big global corps are much more difficult to get rid of than my government. Including the fact that they very much keep communication with my friends at least as much hostage as my government if I decide to move away.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#285

Post by hobofan » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

fvv wrote: post #261

hobofan wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Can you? So China is close to black. Iran has strong internet censorship, so I guess close to black? What about Russia, where AFAIK a normal citizen is pretty free to access information and express their opinion, but bigger political figures are regularly poisoned? What about Turkey?

People here in the comments are already pointing out Spain and the USA, which most people would probably assign to the "free world".

Of course it's a spectrum, but at what difference between countries is such a boycott realistic and doesn't quickly turn into hypocrisy if not enacted against countries uniformly? Shouldn't the USA boycott Iran or Turkey in the same manner if they boycott China? Should Norway start to do the same to US companies?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#286

Post by pmontra » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #150

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

My opinion is that the only realistic solution is a broad offering of many many social media apps, so that people can choose between them.

Hardly realistic. People go where their friends are. This prevents scattering groups over many different social media. We had them in the 2000s, then only one made it to now (FB). The others that are big now (Instagram/FB, WhatsApp/FB, TikTok) are successful because IMHO are on a different medium so don't directly compete with FB and/or are used by a different demographic (young people don't go where older people are, same as for music.)

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#287

Post by joubert » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

rglover wrote: post #241

seamyb88 wrote: post #152

Your police shoot unarmed black people and your president defends them. Free world my ass.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...

That's in absolute numbers.

Better to look at rate, because it shows your risk of being shot and killed, depending on ethnicity - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings...

Black: 32 per million

Hispanic: 24 per million

White: 13 per million

That is, if you're Black, your chances of being shot and killed by the police is 2.5 times higher than if you were white.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#288

Post by mas3god » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

ideals wrote: post #269

kube-system wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China is far worse in that regard, pressure flipping against the US is a common Chinese troll argument.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#289

Post by deelly » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

86J8oyZv wrote: post #233

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

Given the arrests in Portland, does that mean every country should ban American products?

Yep.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#290

Post by ideals » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

Some strong Chinese xenophobia in this thread. This place is getting straight up awful towards Chinese.

Cheerleading a racist president who shouts "China flu" and latching onto this flimsy executive order because you finally get the warm fuzzy feeling of fucking over a company started by a Chinese person is straight up fucked.