Why we are suing the Administration • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#301

Post by dreamcompiler » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

beefield wrote: post #284

dreamcompiler wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Moving to another country is quite difficult unless you are sponsored by an employer there, have dual citizenship, or are rich.

Sure you can fly there, but your tourist visa will run out in a few weeks and they will kick you out if they can find you. So now you're on the run, and good luck finding a job, renting an apartment, or getting health care with an expired tourist visa.

Oh and if you're an American, you won't be able to open an account in a local bank because American banking laws control all banks everywhere.

The above are generalizations and some countries are easier to move to than others. And all of them IMO are much more difficult than deleting Facebook.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#302

Post by ethanwillis » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #276

ethanwillis wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is mediums that have reached a certain size and cultural influence that they are effectively modern public forums. If all public discussion is on happening on these private platforms then they a civic duty to not suppress speech. What's happening is people conflate "not suppressing speech" with "supporting hate speech." They don't support anything. They're nothing more at this point than a publ…

Obscenity as a legal term is complicated. Culturally, even more so. One person's "obscenity" is another person's "vernacular of the street." What is obscene in Kuwait might be an everyday greeting in Sydney. Primarily, you are arguing for compelling corporation to expend effort and expense to carry content deemed objectionable by officers of that company, and I'm not sure you've thought that through. You might think…

I'd rather leave the definition of obscenity to the courts than to a private company.

If a company wants to editorialize their content and provide moderation when they deem fit then they specifically should lose their protections under section 230.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#303

Post by mcherm » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

mmmmmbop wrote: post #126

badRNG wrote: post #28

Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…

> Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. Every legal action was unprecedented at some point, until a precedent was set. That alone is not a strong argument against the TikTok ban being just. In addition to that, note that the EFF post you linked to mentions Lawfare's primer [1] which explains the legal case for the divesting or…

> Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority.

However, Congress cannot delegate a power they do not have. The US Constitution specifically states that:

> No Bill of Attainder [law to punish a particular person or company, rather than those who meet certain categories] [...] shall be passed.

> No person [that includes corporations] shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

These combine to limit the degree to which Congress can decide to just punish a certain company. For instance, they can certainly pass a law saying that any company that threatens national security must be sold or cease doing business. But I believe under current legal precedents Congress could NOT pass a law saying that TikTok must be sold (for no reason... just because Congress doesn't like it) or that all companies that are owned by Democrats must be sold.

Now, if TikTok actually threatens national security, then no one questions whether the President has the authority to order it sold. But "due process" requires that the decision of whether it threatens national security be made on the basis of some reasoning. They don't have to necessarily be RIGHT about whether it threatens national security, but they do at least have to have some reason for believing that it does.

ByteDance claims that the decision was completely arbitrary and based on nothing more than "the company is based in China". If that is true, then this is reminiscent of the Japanese internment camps in WWII -- nothing but plain racism on the part of the government. If that is NOT true, and TikTok threatens national security (not just Donald Trump's ego), then of course it should be sold.

I look forward to finding out the truth of the matter.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#304

Post by horsemessiah » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

mas3god wrote: post #293

seamyb88 wrote: post #152

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

Your country throws millions into forced labor camps and forces them to disown their culture

The U.S. has 22% of the worlds prisoners, despite only having 4% of the population, if you really wanna talk about prison.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#305

Post by dariusj18 » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

ryosuke wrote: post #115

threeseed wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries blocking companies from operating on national security grounds is hardly new in the US or anywhere really. It might be the first US mobile app however I will grant you that.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not legitimate for a country to ban a company on national security grounds, but that this is stretching the definition of what constitutes a national security threat. Which companies currently banned in the US would you say are comparable to TikTok in terms of the threat they could potentially pose?

I would say that mass surveillance by a foreign country is not a stretch.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#306

Post by mas3god » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

euix wrote: post #100

Interesting article in Bloomberg just now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/bytedance... . The kicker is at the end: “He thought that by making a promise to follow international standards or rules he would be able to escape the regulation or the kind of pressure from the American government,” said Ding. “But I think now he realizes he might have been wrong and that if he doesn’t want to sell the com…

Its already controlled by the CCP...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#307

Post by learc83 » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #181

summerlight wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw this logic on HN frequently, but it's significantly flawed. It can be meaningful only if those two nations are completely independent to each other, which is a contradictory to the premise. Otherwise, there will be fairness escalations. To avoid such situation, modern global diplomacy and free trade already have developed a framework to minimize the friction and ensure a minimal level of fairness. The problem i…

China made massive concessions in order to join the WTO. It reduced tariffs from ~40% to ~3%, removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the economy, broke up many state-owned enterprises, created a new intellectual property enforcement system out of nothing, and changed all sorts of laws that benefited domestic companies. That's not to say that there are no legitimate complaints that foreign companies h…

> removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the economy,

This is misleading. On paper sure, but not in reality. The majority of large companies in China will in fact be forced to participate in a joint venture. And sure there is no "law" on the books requiring forced technology transfer, but foreign companies are forced to do it.

China is a not a country that follows the rule of law. Period. The law is whatever the CCP says it is today. There can be no rule of law without an independent judiciary, and the WTO mechanism's you speak of are completely unenforceable.

>broke up many state-owned enterprises

Also misleading. They were technically "broken" up. But they still have have CCP liaison committees, and CCP members running them. The government still assists them with corporate espionage, and provides them with enormous grants and loans. Large companies in China are still state owned enterprises in all but name.

> but the investment environment for foreign companies improved massively in China

It did improve for a few years, but the current administration has managed to reverse nearly all those improvements.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#308

Post by robotron » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

throwaway122378 wrote: post #220

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…

I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this

If a business can refuse service to anyone, so can social media sites, etc.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#309

Post by outtatime » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:56 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…

What's your Bar number? I'm starting to ask people that because armchair lawyering is not helpful and I see it a lot.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#310

Post by fl0wRiny » Tue, Sep 01, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

Who cares though honestly. Cry about it TikTok. Honestly ALL social media should be banned. Citizens don't understand the privacy that is being exploited while they think that they're benefiting from a "free service." Besides these companies are mostly fueling a toxic culture that glorifies sin while they get rich off of the poor. Plus it's the American market and we get to make the decisions here about other countries even if it's extremely authoritarian. And honestly china is a despicable marketplace (not to say fight fire with fire) but gg dude, go to other markets they have been exploiting our market for as long as society can remember. Go do business elsewhere. They're already stealing all of our IP and not required barely any pay to make it. So let's set some boundaries where we can.