Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the don't divest ownership, then what? (The ban)
Sure, but it kinda shows that their priorities are something other than money.
So what? That doesn't make banning media in the US okay
US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
321–330 of 335 posts
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#322Earlier 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.
one thing bothers me is that: americans, even americans in tech industry, seems place a ton of trust in the CIA. you know the government often lies, and the media does too. but you seem to really buy into everything the CIA puts out. I'm curious to know why.
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#323Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
The First Amendment famously has limits, which have been tested and have held, repeatedly. These limits generally arise from conflict with other rights or societal good. On the latter point, obscenity is one of the most well-known exceptions. The government can and does make laws against it. The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obv…
> The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
In this case, a U.S. citizen sued, not the Chinese government.
Again, foreign governments don't have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry.
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 alre…
> The First Amendment doesn't give any foreign entity any rights.
Wait, what?
Are you suggesting the bill of rights only applies to US citizens? Like, does the 5th amendment not protect foreign entities from illegal search and seizure? Does the 2nd amendment not apply to foreign security companies like Securitas?
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#326Firstly, i have to say i am not surprised it's coming from a Republican senator. Secondly, he proposes lots of shit. Nothing gets close to law. The real question is how did he even become a senator? It has to be investigated.
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#327> The Republican Senator from Missouri Josh Hawley has introduced a new bill that would make it illegal to import or export artificial intelligence products to and from China, meaning someone who knowingly downloads a Chinese developed AI model like the now immensely popular DeepSeek could face up to 20 years in jail, a million dollar fine, or both, should such a law pass. You get less jail time for committing 34 fel…
And you can invade getting any jail time for 34 felonies if you become a president and strike deals with billionaires!
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
In this case, a U.S. citizen sued, not the Chinese government. Again, foreign governments don't have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry.
You seem oddly enthusiastic about giving your government the right to violate freedom of speech for entities you do not like, thus removing a platform used both as a platform for speech and for commerce, for 150 million Americans. It totally makes sense to violate the First Amendment over unproven and hypothetical fears of FYP algorithm misuse. Enjoy your slippery slope :)
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, a U.S. citizen sued, not the Chinese government. Again, foreign governments don't have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry.
You seem oddly enthusiastic about giving your government the right to violate freedom of speech for entities you do not like, thus removing a platform used both as a platform for speech and for commerce, for 150 million Americans. It totally makes sense to violate the First Amendment over unproven and hypothetical fears of FYP algorithm misuse. Enjoy your slippery slope :)
Feel free to re-read my comments and address my actual statement, pointing out that your initial assertion is wrong. That, versus changing the subject.
>Enjoy your slippery slope
There's certainly a slippery slope here—and a strawman, but they ain't mine.
Re: US bill proposes jail time for people who download DeepSeek
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem oddly enthusiastic about giving your government the right to violate freedom of speech for entities you do not like, thus removing a platform used both as a platform for speech and for commerce, for 150 million Americans. It totally makes sense to violate the First Amendment over unproven and hypothetical fears of FYP algorithm misuse. Enjoy your slippery slope :)
Feel free to re-read my comments and address my actual statement , pointing out that your initial assertion is wrong. That, versus changing the subject. > Enjoy your slippery slope There's certainly a slippery slope here—and a strawman, but they ain't mine.
You just refuse to accept that entities that you do not like also have Freedom of Speech rights. You continue to believe that Freedom of Speech is a positive right to people, rather than a negative right against the government. You are therefore perfectly fine with preemptively suppressing the speech (and commerce) for over a hundred million American citizens, because you perceive a threat from the FYP algorithm, because you do not value the Freedom of Speech rights of entities you do not like. That is a slippery slope. If you don't want to recognise that either, that's your prerogative.
At this point, why even have a negative-right Freedom of Speech if you're just going to treat it like a positive right anyway? Ridiculous.