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

321–330 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#321

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#322

Post by whatshisface »

fl0wRiny wrote: post #310

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 countri…

>Honestly ALL social media should be banned.

The page you're posting that comment on is social media...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#323

Post by Ericson2314 »

hatchnyc wrote: post #279
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 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…

It's not a "sentiment", but a description of legal reality. You want something different? Fine, but you need to get new laws passed first.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#324

Post by Ericson2314 »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #258
koheripbal wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the realities of network effects and the observed tendency for a small number of social media platforms to dominate the market, this doesn't sound particularly realistic. More choice would indeed be great, but I highly doubt that'll ever happen with a product/service whose entire value proposition depends on everyone choosing the same one.

We need governments to promote federation, so we can have both choice and network effects.

To bad there's far less money in federation---it's "moatlessness" ruins the business proposition---so I don't know who will pay for this lobbying.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#325

Post by Ericson2314 »

Honestly, as much as I dislike the CCP, I definitely want TikTok to stay until/unless there is some real anti-trust or other FAANG weakening happening.

Even if Tik Tok just kills Facebook and becomes the new Facebook, that's fine. Now the US goverment won't feel conflicted between anti-trust and tech nationalism, and we can lobby for much better privacy laws.

Anti-trust has been such a joke in the last few decades, and federal governance so bad in general around all issues of privacy, technology, and competition, I'll accept the Chinese competitor cudgel because it's the best we got.

Sigh.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#326

Post by gostsamo »

dalbasal wrote: post #270
gostsamo wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure what "tried and insulting" means in this case, but it might be my english. My point is that you blame the symptoms and refuse to realize the root cause.

Calling the EP "clown house" is also insulting and calling the EU bureaucracy outright incompetent is tabloid style simplification and I'm not sure what else I can compare it to.

Yes, it is easy to say: "they are not strong leaders", but they can't be strong leaders, but how they could be when they are dependent and have limited mandate?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#327

Post by dahfizz »

dkn775 wrote: post #213
dahfizz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's clearly a national security threat and different from wanting data profiles on everyone. What's the threat model here? Certainly ousting LGBT people is scummy, but I'm not sure I understand how it jeopardizes the security of the nation. You could argue that the ability to blackmail government officials compromises national security, but lots of things in that "data profile" could be used for blackmail. I don…

I would imagine that if someone is hiding some use of the Grindr app from their S/O, they can be blackmailed. It would be particularly evident due to the location and photo-based tenants of the service. That is exactly why they ask the questions they do on the counterintelligence polygraph

Right, but certainly the same applies for any app someone might use to cheat (Tinder, Facebook, etc). I don't understand why Grindr is in a class of its own.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#328

Post by spamizbad »

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…

Well then you're going to be banning a lot of companies. Or you'll be putting a lot of businesses in a position where they have to decide whether they want a relationship with China (growing economy, growing global influence) or the United States (stagnant economy, shrinking global influence).

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#329

Post by tenebrisalietum »

whatshisface wrote: post #322
fl0wRiny wrote: post #310

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 countri…

> Honestly ALL social media should be banned. The page you're posting that comment on is social media...

Forums that don't require you to use your real time, don't track your location, and are text only are not synonymous with the modern sense of social media.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#330

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> 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.

Putting aside whether or not this is nonsense to begin with, it certainly doesn't apply to China, which is a government. A law requiring companies serving the US market to not comply with censorship by China is restricting what China can do, not what those companies can do. The companies then have a problem if they exist in two jurisdictions which now have conflicting laws, but they can solve it by moving out of whichever jurisdiction they please.

Post reply on HN