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

311–320 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#311

Post by stOneskull »

joubert wrote: post #287
rglover wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you make it sound like the police are a murder cult. they shoot because of a crime incident.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#312

Post by robotron »

Draiken wrote: post #72
threeseed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented No it's not. China has banned most Western apps in the interests of national security. And that article you listed on analysing TikTok is hilariously incompetent. Didn't think to investigate multiplexing data with the video stream ?

I think OP means: > is largely unprecedented "in the US". As others stated, if the US wants to start using China as a country to base its precedents on, that's even more concerning in my view.

Compare HK and Portland...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#313

Post by yorwba »

wolco wrote: post #137
simion314 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean FB has a lot of information about users, have you seen how you are tagged in the ads ? Any private person can target any subgroup and we know that FB transferred this data to different companies in the past, the probability that some government somewhere that wanted the FB data does not have it yet (maybe a bit outdated) is Zero. Let's assume you block all applications that are suspected of relations with CCP…

When tiktok removes Hong Kong related protests videos this is bigger than the ccp having a facebook group or buying advertising profiles.

If they took those down, that would certainly be a problem, yes: https://www.tiktok.com/tag/%E5%85%89%E5%BE%A9%E9%A6%99%E6%B8...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#314

Post by pwinnski »

ethanwillis wrote: post #302
pwinnski wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is completely the opposite of how section 230 works, and section 230 is the entire reason websites like Hacker News are allowed to exist. Your argument has now gotten even worse, not better!

If a company loses Section 230 protections, the safest move is to disable user content completely. No comments anywhere. The next-safest move is to be extremely heavy-handed editorially, since any comment left alone could be the basis for a company-ending lawsuit. Whatever views you believe are being censored now, I guarantee you they would be actually censored completely without Section 230.

Read Section 230[0]. It's the foundation of the modern internet and says almost exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Read 230(c)(2)(A) twice.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#315

Post by ArchD »

dalbasal wrote: post #186
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…

Why does the CPC ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies? They want control over media, especially political content. They want to make sure speech, affiliation and such is under their control. Are you saying the US should adopt this approach? Trade fairness is a red herring.

No, the symmetry matters only in the relationship between the two countries, not in them mirroring each other in their domestic practices.

The patriarch of a neighboring family does not welcome members of your family into their home, so why should your family welcome them into yours? On the other hand, that the patriarch practices domestic violence is another matter; you don't mirror that.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#316

Post by platz »

kube-system wrote: post #273
smt88 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you're sick of the First Amendment. Private companies have it just like you do. The remedy is to break up the big forums, not to take away the rights of their owners.

If we’re still talking about TikTok here, the concern is that they don’t have the right to free speech — that the rights on their platform is coopted by a government power.

This simply isn't an issue regarding the first-amendment; not sure this thread needs to go into the philosophical dilemma on this here.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#317

Post by dexen »

lmkg wrote: post #292
hatchnyc wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have come to disagree with the sentiment. The constitution prevents congress from restricting free speech because it is a document written about what congress can and cannot do, not because the authors wanted to argue that restricting freedom of speech was a job that should be left to individuals and businesses. It is only in response to someone mistakenly arguing to assert their 1st amendment rights in a context w…

There's a paradox, though. If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech. I'm not generally in favor of taking corporate personhood to logical extremes, but I'm kind of OK with companies having values and being able promote those values. Being able to promote some speech over others is part of that. The First Ame…

>If we say e.g. YouTube is not allowed to remove content, that's actually a restriction of freedom of speech. In particular, YouTube's freedom of speech.

This is not quite right, legally speaking. Currently Youtube and other platforms enjoy the protection of Communication Decency Act Section 230 [1]. In particular, the passage "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

This passage has two side effects. One is, those platforms enjoy a liability protection - they cannot be sued for the content published on them, as they are not 'speaker/publisher' of the content (the original poster is). The other is, those platforms should not enjoy the freedom of speech protection - as they are not, legally speaking, the 'speaker/publisher' of the content.

The 'freedom of speech of Youtube' argument runs counter to Youtube's best interest - immunity from civil liability, as granted through the Section 230.

--

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#318

Post by selectodude »

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…

I haven't bought anything off Amazon in awhile. I'm sure I still use AWS when I browse the web but I'm not militant in my lack of support. Hopefully they move somewhere else, but it's fine regardless.

I'd be on the next flight out if there was some sort of undocumented American community somewhere in Western Europe or something. But that simply doesn't exist.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#319

Post by kube-system »

platz wrote: post #316
kube-system wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re still talking about TikTok here, the concern is that they don’t have the right to free speech — that the rights on their platform is coopted by a government power.

This simply isn't an issue regarding the first-amendment; not sure this thread needs to go into the philosophical dilemma on this here.

Correct, it is an issue regarding the lack of Chinese speech rights. The US constitution is irrelevant in China.

Human rights, however, are natural rights.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#320

Post by ghayes »

zadkey wrote: post #299

"By banning TikTok with no notice or opportunity to be heard (whether before or after the fact), the executive order violates the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment." The 5th amendment rights that they are asserting apply to people. This brings us back to the question of "Are corporations people?" "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or ind…

The 14th Amendment expands the scope of the 5th Amendment by clarifying when and how Due Process must be applied. The Court has generally expanded the scope over the last 200 years, and I do not think TikTok will have to seriously argue whether or not Constitutional due process applies in this case. The arguments should mostly lie in whether or not Due Process was applied and likely more on the application of Federal law in the case.
Post reply on HN