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

351–360 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#351

Post by singlow »

sudosysgen wrote: post #259
someonehere wrote: post #234

Radio Free Asia (unsure of legitimacy of this site) has stated China used TikTok data out of the Houston consulate (remember it was shut down by the State Department out of the blue and neighbors were filming the consulate burning documents in the courtyard) to manipulate the BLM protest narrative: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3876672/posts “The purpose was to “weaponize” big data technology. It delivere…

Radio Free Asia has been founded by the CIA, and is generally considered to be a propaganda rag. Would not use it as a source, and if you can only find RFA as a source and not much else it's probably outright false.

Wasn't that a different organization that operated in the 50s? The modern RFA started in the 90s and gets federal funding but is not associated with the CIA. They probably should have used a new name, but is there any other reason you think they are a CIA rag?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#352

Post by sdoering »

RandoHolmes wrote: post #347
sct202 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech is not the same in the rest of the world outside of America. Lots of European countries have hate speech laws in place where you can be convicted of crimes for speaking your mind if it's hateful. The EU has been pressuring large tech companies into self complying https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-l... But just the other day, there was a huge post with lots of uproar about ho…

Reminds me of the guy who taught his girlfriends dog to raise it's paw when it saw hitler talking or when it heard the phrase "heil hitler". He did it as a joke and put the video on youtube and ended up going to jail over it. Which I very strongly disagree with. It was perhaps in poor taste, but hurt no one.

It happened in Germany, where he went to jail, because he regularly showed forbidden Nazi insignia as well as regularly doing the Hitler salute and shouting "Sieg Heil" - all of which is forbidden by law in Germany.

Especially after he was already on probation for earlier transgressions against these laws.

He did not go to jail because he "only" teached his dog (it was actually his dog) a poor taste trick.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#353

Post by thinkloop »

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 wonder when the F will drop like the N. Facebook is not close to as important/irreplaceable as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#354

Post by chojeen »

It's hard to know how to feel about this complex situation. On one hand:

- The Chinese government clearly has its tendrils in TikTok and uses it to push its oppressive censorship policies around the world

- The security implications of giving China a backdoor into a large percentage of American phones is too concerning to ignore

On the other hand:

- Explicitly targeting specific companies feels wrong. If security and censorship are real concerns here, Congress should be passing laws that apply to all companies, not just TikTok

- Even though there are sound reasons to restrict TikTok, this is still a transparently protectionist policy by the Trump admin and fits right into his nationalistic, totalitarian, xenophobic playbook. A broken clock is still right twice a day, I suppose

- Requiring a sale to an American company is the mirror image of China's forced technology transfers for foreign companies. Two wrongs don't make a right

I think the best scenario is for Congress to preempt Trump with laws that protect American security and free speech interests without executive action. That's easier said than done, though.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#355

Post by singlow »

sudosysgen wrote: post #349
president wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you're just making a bad faith argument.

You can't prove a negative. If the only source for something was TASS or the CGTN and you couldn't find any other source, it would be treated as false until proof of the contrary. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something to provide a credible source. The CIA is not a good source for things that conflict with US interests.

Any evidence that the CIA is involved with the modern RFA, which is a different organization than the one with the same name that the CIA ran in the 50s?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#356

Post by vorpalhex »

86J8oyZv wrote: post #233
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…

Given the arrests in Portland, does that mean every country should ban American products?

Most countries arrest people who are breaking windows, setting things on fire, engaging in riots after being told to disperse and illegally carrying weapons. All of the people who were arrested were charged and then released (pending bail, recognizance, etc per Washington law).

You may feel those actions are just, but being just does not make them legal.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#357

Post by RandoHolmes »

sdoering wrote: post #352
RandoHolmes wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the guy who taught his girlfriends dog to raise it's paw when it saw hitler talking or when it heard the phrase "heil hitler". He did it as a joke and put the video on youtube and ended up going to jail over it. Which I very strongly disagree with. It was perhaps in poor taste, but hurt no one.

It happened in Germany, where he went to jail, because he regularly showed forbidden Nazi insignia as well as regularly doing the Hitler salute and shouting "Sieg Heil" - all of which is forbidden by law in Germany. Especially after he was already on probation for earlier transgressions against these laws. He did not go to jail because he "only" teached his dog (it was actually his dog) a poor taste trick.

fair enough, I'm not super familiar with the guy I just remember that being the narrative.

As an aside, I remember watching 'The Wave' years ago (I think there's a new version on netflix?) and being fascinated by it. It gave a brief glimpse into the cultural fear of what happened in Germany happening again.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#358

Post by rglover »

joubert wrote: post #345
stOneskull wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> they shoot because of a crime incident. Even if all fatal police shootings were directly related to a crime committed by the person who is killed (they're not), we have to ask ourselves whether such shootings (or killing by other means, e.g. chokehold) are an appropriate technique for law enforcement. Which crimes or actions warrant shooting or killing someone, in your opinion? When we look at data that show killin…

> Which crimes or actions warrant shooting or killing someone, in your opinion?

No situation warrants killing someone, but there are situations where if that happens it shouldn't be a surprise or immediately viewed as an injustice.

Specifically, violent crimes or crimes that when responded to by police, can turn into a violent situation:

- Direct violence (homicide, murder, domestic abuse, etc.)

- Gang related activity (drug operations, sex operations, etc.)

- Resisting arrest (there's no way for an officer to know what you'll do next and if non-lethal force cannot subdue you, then escalation is warranted)

Where it seems a lot of these situations get out of hand is more in the gang-related or resisting arrest category. It's reasonable for officers to defend themselves, and while it'd be ideal for a non-lethal outcome to happen in each case, it's impossible for every situation to end this way.

Something I've suggested elsewhere when it comes to the "how to reform this?" question is to do a few different things:

- Increase the pay of officers to be at the ranking of a doctor/lawyer while also requiring equally stringent qualifications and training.

- Both before and after admission to the force, regular psychological screenings and profilings that evaluate both your record, your relationships, and your social media history (warranted due to the amount of power you're granted and offset by the high pay).

- Public voting for police chiefs, psychologists, and other officials combined with the above routine psychological screenings and profiling.

Sadly, even with all of this, there will still be mistakes and injustices but I think the above can have a significant impact on making law enforcement less prone to violence.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#359

Post by [deleted] »

mattmanser wrote: post #265
dimitrios1 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ship sailed long ago on the EU being anything but corrupt at this point for me when they continuously flirted the idea of Turkey being invited in, extend protected statuses in trade arrangements, and do nothing to help their actual members, like Greece, against the war games and provocations that occur on an almost weekly basis in the Aegean. Once again, it's all in the name of the oil.

The world is grey, not black and white. These are collectives of politicians, who have a huge number of difficult problems to solve and limited means of solving them. They have conflicting, national, local and, yes, some personal demands. A mass of conflicting ideology, with varying levels of diligence, ethics and greed. Expecting absolute morals is expecting the impossible. Compared to virtually any government in hi…

[deleted]

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#360

Post by joshuamorton »

dexen wrote: post #317
lmkg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

This is not correct. Section 230 does not restrict or amend a sites freedom of speech, nor does it make a distinction between a platform or publisher.

The effect of the law is that sites have less civil liability for user generated content, even if they make some decisions about what content is acceptable.

Those decisions can't get limited under the first amendment, and the content still has 3rd party speech protection.

So the government asking YouTube to remove a video would be a 1a violation, by controlling it's moderation decisions.

Post reply on HN