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

361–370 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#361

Post by mrkstu »

krapp wrote: post #335
umvi wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?

Employers have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want barring discrimination against protected classes, based on whatever criteria they want to consider relevant. "Person who said a stupid thing on the internet" is not a protected class. A Twitter mob doesn't have any objective power to prevent anyone from finding employment. They do, however, have free speech rights which include the right to communicate w…

And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#362

Post by nxc18 »

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…

Trump administration has been actively corrupting radio free Asia: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926/trumps-new-foreign-...

It was legitimate a few years ago, but nowadays I don’t trust it.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#363

Post by vorpalhex »

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…

> I'm saying that they are here to protect us

The police do not exist to protect you, nor do they have a duty to do so. The police exist to keep civil society orderly - that may mean protecting people at times, but often times simply apprehending criminals post-crime is enough.

Put another way, no amount of police are going to prevent you from being murdered or having your wallet stolen, but more police will probably catch more murderers and thieves after their crime.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#364

Post by jamie_ca »

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…

Youtube already has guidelines on the content you're not allowed to post (spam, nudity, violence, harassment, hate speech...) and that hasn't impacted their CDA or copyright-safe-harbor exceptions.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#365

Post by dash2 »

selectodude wrote: post #318
beefield wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Last I looked, they were all in Berlin, pushing up the rent and talking about their startup.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#366

Post by joshuamorton »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #330
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…

> 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…

Would you say that an EU law restricting companies from complying with a US warrant is restricting the companies, or the US?

(In practice the way this is done is with data location rules, that EU data must be stored in the EU, which is clearly a restriction on the way the company operates)

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#367

Post by xtian »

ekianjo wrote: post #157
Retric wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As 1984 put it ‘oceania has always been at war with eurasia’ edit: eastasia . Country’s have complex relationships. At the height of the Cold War the US and USSR still had some trade. It’s really propaganda that boils things down to allies and enemies.

> It’s really propaganda that boils things down to allies and enemies. Yes and no, there are some ways of seeing things that are not really compatible. For example, the USSR wanted to export communism internationally which meant incidentally fomenting violent coups around the world to create socialist powers they could control. If you are a target of such strategies you can't seriously be "friendly" with such powers…

The US has fomented violent coups and interfered with legitimate elections all around the world in service of exporting capitalism and free market imperialism (e.g., in Italy, Indonesia, Iran, any number of countries in Central and South America).

And Stalin repeatedly instructed revolutionary communists to stand down in order to avoid provoking Western powers (e.g, in Greece, Italy, France, Yugoslavia, and even China). The USSR provided little to no assistance to revolutionaries in Central and South America, believing that socialism needed to develop there naturally.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#368

Post by joshuamorton »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #344
Imnimo wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? If the CEO of TikTok says he doesn't want "free Tibet" on his platform because he wants to be on good terms with China, not because China specifically told him to censor it, is that his freedom?

> What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice.

I have at least two options: comply or exit the jurisdiction. It is my choice to do the former.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#369

Post by jariel »

phkahler wrote: post #202
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…

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…

True - but - we can still ban foreign companies who act in nasty ways.

We 'divest from Oil' for god's sake we can at least 'divest from the CCP'.

The CCP has a team in most (about 85%) of Chinese companies to ensure they tow the party line. They don't care about day-to-day operations, but when it comes to sensitive things, they report back to the CCP.

Thanks to technology ... it's the most systematically totalitarian state ever devised.

When writing 20th century dystopian novels, we never even conceived of the level of personal control.

Imagine if the US president ordered a CIA or GOP organ inside every US company, directed the Fed to put money in certain banks, and directed the banks to make loans to specific companies on specific terms. And then read everyone's email, browser history, chat to make sure they 'complied' and flagged anyone who ever hinted anything other than the accepted truth.

That's just scratching the surface.

We should ban it.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#370

Post by nxc18 »

wombatmobile wrote: post #99

President Trump's executive order states these reasons for banning TikTok: "TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories. This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China t…

The Trump administration itself spread debunked conspiracies about the Novel Coronavirus...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/03/mike-pompeo-do...

Post reply on HN