US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek • Hacker News Board

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#311

Post by aprilthird2021 » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 12:18 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #305

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's, imo, not a reason to ban it. When it comes to media, yes curated media like magazines, journals, newspapers, and social media, Americans have the right to consume whatever media they want (minus exceptions like CSAM). If Americans want to watch hours of CCP-edited brainrot scrolly videos, that's 100% our right. We were never supposed to be a country like China or India who bans websites just because they…

It's not banned, they're forcing the Chinese to divest ownership & control of it, same as China does to US companies, really. The fact is that they'd rather shut it down than be unable to gather location data or build social graphs of their user base. Frankly the propaganda aspect is the least troubling part of it because you're right, people can make their own choices about information sources. But figuring out who…

If the don't divest ownership, then what? (The ban)

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#312

Post by jpcom » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 12:25 AM UTC

michalhosna wrote: post #290

jpcom wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this confusing? China spies on you. If you use an app that's tied directly to headquarters, headquarters can read what you think.

Were you able to read the parent comment at all? Are you confused by the questions/arguments in it?

Yes I read the parent comment, do you mean the two questions

  > Is it proposing to ban US citizens from reading research papers written by Chinese citizens?

  > Or from publishing research in places that might be read by them?

Clearly, both are impossible to implement, wouldn't you agree? The bill talks about "AI products," as per the article, and that would be what a consumer uses, not what a researcher uses. Can legislators ban the reading of papers in America? There are 1st amendment issues there. But for protection against external states messing with our population, there's a different set of rules.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#313

Post by SZJX » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 1:20 AM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #32

dmix wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it’s even worth speculating on a bill that’s merely been proposed. This one sounds DOA. But yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent, mostly because it was based on speculative risks, not hard proof of existing behaviour (TikTok not engaging didn't help at all either). Regardless of the merits I too hope it doesn’t have a ripple effect. National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want…

The risk from TikTok is possibly not speculative at all. I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something and informed congressmen because they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time.

lol that’s such wishful thinking and seeing those congressmen in a way too competent light. If they had any hard evidence they’d have published it. It isn’t hard to understand is it.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#314

Post by majormajor » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 2:00 AM UTC

Defletter wrote: post #144

majormajor wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Many people just don't think the First Amendment applies to foreign nations. (Why would it??) And that restrictions on corporate control/structure for the US-based parts are not speech issues (e.g. imagine if free speech was a defense against an anti-trust prosecution). The simplest case for banning TikTok is simple reciprocity. China is no longer a market that needs the level of protectionism they currently ha…

Let's remind ourselves of what the First Amendment says: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution does not consider Freedom of Speech a positive right, one that can be g…

If we're parsing at a super detailed level "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" seems even further away from the TikTok law, if anything.

"Apple has a first amendment right to be able to list any app it wants, regardless of source" seems like the only claim you could make. The Lamont case doesn't directly apply since the government isn't an intermediary between Apple and ByteDance saying "are you SURREEEE you want to get this app from them?" And the existence of restrictions on what you can send/receive through the mail make it clear that Lamont isn't a blanket "you can't regulate messages between people" restriction.

So is "hey Apple, don't list things that meet that criteria" different than "hey UPS, don't send things that meet this other criteria"?

AFAICT the Supreme Court didn't really consider it from this angle anyway and just looked at it as a regulation on corporate control, which also seems completely legitimate. Can the US gov't say "certain things require US-person-owned/controlled companies?" They do for other things already.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#315

Post by cjonas » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 3:04 AM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #297

cjonas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk is obvious and it has nothing to do with privacy... It's the fact that CCP could deliberately alter the algorithm to influence a significant portion of the US in any way they please.

Uh oh, scary ideas. I am more scared of christo-fascism within the US than any pro Chinese messaging. To counter these ideas, I want more discussion, more education. I have learned a lot on tiktok

Maybe christo-fascism is pro Chinese messaging (not really but they definitely could push messaging that encouraged division and instability if they wanted).

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#316

Post by Natsu » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 3:38 AM UTC

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #311

Natsu wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not banned, they're forcing the Chinese to divest ownership & control of it, same as China does to US companies, really. The fact is that they'd rather shut it down than be unable to gather location data or build social graphs of their user base. Frankly the propaganda aspect is the least troubling part of it because you're right, people can make their own choices about information sources. But figuring out who…

If the don't divest ownership, then what? (The ban)

Sure, but it kinda shows that their priorities are something other than money.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#317

Post by mattmaroon » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 3:39 AM UTC

jchw wrote: post #215

groggo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's stupid to get upset over an app like TikTok, but the ban really did shock me a little, even more so because of how widely supported it was. What party or politicians support individual freedom in this context? How could libertarians support banning an app?

I hate to get involved with this one because it's not my fight and I don't personally care. That said, I have no issue reconciling the concept of someone who supports individual freedom and banning TikTok. Banning TikTok, at least theoretically, is more to do with TikTok's right to do business here, not your right to use TikTok. I don't think it is illegal to use TikTok if you were to bypass the block. It's illegal f…

Not even that, it's unlawful for another business (Apple or Google) to carry TikTok. TikTok can let you in just fine (what are we going to do, sue China?) and you can use it, the app store just can't carry it. It would also be illegal for Oracle to host it.

"it is unlawful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok, unless U. S. operation of the platform is severed from Chinese control."

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#318

Post by mattmaroon » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 3:42 AM UTC

kelipso wrote: post #271

groggo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's stupid to get upset over an app like TikTok, but the ban really did shock me a little, even more so because of how widely supported it was. What party or politicians support individual freedom in this context? How could libertarians support banning an app?

I’t’s very clear now that it was the Palestine support among tiktok users that was the main reason. I’m guessing Israel issues typically get that level of support in congress.

I actually think this is the most likely culprit. I think Tiktok deliberately showed Americans all sorts of videos of the horrors going on in Gaza (which certainly there are) but none of the videos from 10/7. They show us people talking about how evil Israel and us are, nothing about Hamas's actions, motivations, etc.

If they wanted to do the opposite, they could show us videos from 10/7 (there are a lot), talk to the survivors, show us historians talking about Hamas's particularly insidious brand of extremism, show videos of them hanging gay people from cranes, etc. Whatever agenda they want to push, it's clear how they could do it.

I think they probably do this with other things too, to make us hate our government. Our chaos benefits China. I think the intelligence agencies showed Congress data they collected on this.

I admit, this is a giant mound of speculation, but even if China didn't do that, it's quite obvious they could and seems likely they would. Whether or not they've exploited TikTok in that manner is certainly debatable but I don't wish to leave them the option in the future.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#319

Post by mattmaroon » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 3:48 AM UTC

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #270

brookst wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the closed door intelligence meeting had no bearing, or that it was… Israel? Or I’m not sure what you’re implying.

It is true that the reasoning mentioned by the commenter was also given as an example of why TikTok needs to be banned by a few legislators. I don't think the closed door intelligence was about that though. I think they probably said that the persuasive power of TikTok was dangerous to the US, but imo, that's very against the First Amendment and the idea of democracy. Americans are allowed to be influenced however wh…

The First Amendment doesn't give any foreign entity any rights. There's no censorship of Americans here, whatever you posted on TikTok you're free to post on Instagram. In fact you can even still post it on TikTok, it just can't be in the Apple or Google app store and it can't be hosted on Oracle servers.

I think a closed door intelligence meeting is unlikely to just be them telling Congressmen scenarios they've already heard. I think they much more likely had some receipts. Some of the Senators in that meeting (from both parties) have sponsored a bill to declassify it and share it with the public, so we may find out.

Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek

#320

Post by kelipso » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 4:44 AM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #318

kelipso wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’t’s very clear now that it was the Palestine support among tiktok users that was the main reason. I’m guessing Israel issues typically get that level of support in congress.

I actually think this is the most likely culprit. I think Tiktok deliberately showed Americans all sorts of videos of the horrors going on in Gaza (which certainly there are) but none of the videos from 10/7. They show us people talking about how evil Israel and us are, nothing about Hamas's actions, motivations, etc. If they wanted to do the opposite, they could show us videos from 10/7 (there are a lot), talk to th…

The other big social media apps were banning or suppressing pro-Palestine content during that time, so tiktok was the only place you could post that stuff. Whether they were deliberately pushing it is debatable I suppose. I am fairly certain it was organic since it was the only big place you could post it.