Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#381

Post by stefan_ » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:47 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because this is not about the first amendment? This just happens to be a company that runs a social network. Congress regulates commerce with foreign nations and made the decision, as it has in many other cases, that a foreign nation can not be the beneficial owner of TikTok. TikTok then made no effort to divest, giving away the game if you want, and predictably lost this challenge.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#382

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:48 PM UTC

gregopet wrote: post #67

I'm sure the other countries are watching this and considering what the US is doing with their data in its apps.

They dont need to wonder. The US is constantly operating media propaganda campaigns around the globe interfering with elections and promoting coups.

Democratic outcomes that don't agree with our politics are officially deemed illegitimate, even if the elections are certified as fair.

It would be crazy to believe the US is somehow shy about running psyops when we openly arm rebels and bomb countries.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#383

Post by hedora » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:48 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #209

briffle wrote: post #21

Still have no good answer on why its bad for a company that is supposedly under Chineese influence to collect this kind of information on us, and adjust and tweak an 'algorith' for displaying content. But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? Wouldn't the right solution be to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic?

Plenty of good answers have already been put forward. But in case you're asking in good faith, here are the two main ones: 1- It's in the interest of the US government to protect its interests and citizens from governments that are considered adversarial, which China is. And unlike other countries, the Chinese government exercises a great deal of direct control over major companies (like ByteDance). If TikTok was con…

Those are answers to a different question.

The US companies continue to feed the same information to the Chinese, even though the Federal government has been trying to get them to stop for almost a decade (I cite sources elsewhere in this thread).

So, all of your arguments apply equally to the big US owned social media companies.

Since the ban won’t stop the Chinese from mining centralized social media databases, the important part of the question is:

> Wouldn't the right solution be to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic?

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#384

Post by iLoveOncall » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:48 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

TikTok doesn't do speech. Users on TikTok do speech. Banning TikTok doesn't prevent any users from printing / distributing / disseminating their speech.

The first amendment doesn't have any provision regarding the potential reach or enablement of distribution of the speech of the people.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#385

Post by psunavy03 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:50 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #347

mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publication s were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

What Sotomayor said is irrelevant; she's one of nine Justices. What is in the opinion is what is controlling.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#386

Post by nickelpro » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:50 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

There weren't any laws passed banning Soviet associated agencies from publishing based on chain of ownership. Nothing to do with SCOTUS.

Read the opinion, the law was upheld on intermediate scrutiny. It doesn't ban based on content, it bans based on the designation of the foreign parent as an adversary. Since it's not a content ban, or rather because it's a content-neutral ban, strict scrutiny does not apply.

Without strict scrutiny, the law merely needs to fulfill a compelling government interest.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#387

Post by trinsic2 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:51 PM UTC

Wait, where's the Facebook/Meta ban? Is unlawful data collection only unlawful if it's done under a foreign adversary? I guess not to the US Government where their interests align with adversarial data collection practices against its own people.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#388

Post by tevon » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:52 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #364

legitster wrote: post #119

TikTok is perhaps the most impressively addictive social media app ever created. The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive. There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction. Geopolitics aside, I think everyone is kind of aware that social media is…

What needs to happen is that all of these platforms need to be straight up banned. TikTok is getting picked on because of its ties to China, but why is it better for Zuckerberg or Musk to have the capabilities that are so frightening in the hands of the CCP? The US social media billionaire class is ostensibly accountable to the law, but they're also perfectly capable of using their influence over these platforms to w…

Because if Zuck or Musk does something bad with said power, we can do something about it.

We can't really jail the CCP. Additionally, Zuck and Musk don't have armies to back up their propaganda. We shouldn't let foreign powers own the means of broadcast...

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#389

Post by int0x29 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:52 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #347

mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publication s were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

People have rights to speak within reason. Governments don't. The Chinese government shaping content is not protected. The law notably does not ban individual content.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#390

Post by _2d30 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 4:52 PM UTC

throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because there is no "TikTok" ban and never has been.

There is a "TikTok cannot be controlled by the CCP" law. TikTok is completely legal under the law as long as they divest it. However, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.