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

391–400 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#391

Post by SamReidHughes »

vimy wrote: post #281
mellow2020 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is, when I post that Catalonia should be free and go on holiday in Spain, no spooks would follow me around, and no pressure would be put on German companies to fire me, and this isn't even remotely comparable.

7 elected politicians and 2 leaders of the independence movement have been arrested and convicted for the ‘crime’ of holding a referendum. Up to 13 years in prison.

They spent public money on the referendum, didn't they? If the subordinate government could do whatever they wanted, they wouldn't need a referendum, would they.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#392

Post by pdonis »

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…

> The constitution prevents congress from restricting free speech because it is a document written about what congress can and cannot do

This is not correct as a blanket statement. The constitution defines the powers of all three branches of government, not just congress. It also puts some restrictions on states and has some general prohibitions that don't just apply to government (for example, it defines treason). No other amendment in the Bill of Rights has "congress shall make no law" in it; they all just say certain things are prohibited or required, period. And subsequent amendments, such as the Fourteenth, place restrictions on States. Parts of the constitution are specifications for congress specifically. But not all of it.

The reason individuals and businesses can refuse to allow speech they don't like in their homes or places of business, or on their websites, is that that is part of their right to free speech--the right to control speech on their own property.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#393

Post by sudosysgen »

singlow wrote: post #355
sudosysgen wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Right. So RFA was created by the CIA. In 1971 the directorship was transferred to the BIB. In 1994 the directorship was transferred once again to the USIA. In 1999, the directorship was transferred to the AGM.

All four of these organizations are under the direct control of the US State Department. Seems to me that this is just shuffling around to obfuscate who owns what. It still uses the same tactics, is directed by the same people, and operates under the same name, it's just a game of shell companies.

However, I never claimed it was still directly controlled by the CIA. It's still controlled by the State Department, and is indeed founded by the CIA, as there is continuity between the CIA and the modern RFA. By the standard that you are requesting, that is to prove that the CIA is still directly connected to RFA right this present minute, it's not realistic to provide such proof. However, there is proof that the RFA is still commanded by the same people as under the CIA, and that is sufficient.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#394

Post by the_other »

robjan wrote: post #128
drtillberg wrote: post #88

The silliness in the statement about being "obligated" to the TikTok community.... It's contradictory, just like all ToS would be. Compare: Public Relations Statement : "Put simply, we have a thriving community and we are grateful – and responsible – to them." With: Terms of Service [1] ( hilariously, TikTok provides a read time estimate on the ToS of "279 - 354 minutes"): We reserve the right to disable your user ac…

In this case they are probably using "obligated" in the context of repaying a debt of gratitude.

I’d just call it spin.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#395

Post by YinglingLight »

bwb wrote: post #146
throwawayinfo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh... in some parts of the US there is still a stigma against being LGBT. Grindr being foreign owned means opening up the possibility of people (who aren't ready to come out) being blackmailed. And that's clearly a national security threat and different from wanting data profiles on everyone.

In some ways it is kinda funny in a dark way, as our inability to accept people for how they are is a national security threat :).

You don't get to the upper eschelon of power without Those even higher up having you blackmailed hook, line, and sinker.

Ignore the below: 动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#398

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

learc83 wrote: post #307
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China made massive concessions in order to join the WTO. It reduced tariffs from ~40% to ~3%, removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the economy, broke up many state-owned enterprises, created a new intellectual property enforcement system out of nothing, and changed all sorts of laws that benefited domestic companies. That's not to say that there are no legitimate complaints that foreign companies h…

> removed joint-venture restrictions from most sectors of the economy, This is misleading. On paper sure, but not in reality. The majority of large companies in China will in fact be forced to participate in a joint venture. And sure there is no "law" on the books requiring forced technology transfer, but foreign companies are forced to do it. China is a not a country that follows the rule of law. Period. The law is…

> The majority of large companies in China will in fact be forced to participate in a joint venture.

That's just not true any more. Companies sometimes choose to enter joint ventures, but in most industries, they're not forced to. Many large foreign companies operate without JV partners in China.

> There can be no rule of law without an independent judiciary, and the WTO mechanism's you speak of are completely unenforceable.

WTO rulings have led to concrete changes in Chinese policy, and beyond that, China has undergone very fundamental changes to its economic structure and regulation as a condition of WTO membership. In terms of things like IP enforcement, there is something approaching rule of law in China. Western companies can enforce their IP rights through the Chinese judiciary, and they have a very good success rate.

> They were technically "broken" up. But they still have have CCP liaison committees

Having a "liaison committee" is very different from being a giant monopoly that rules the market and doesn't have to fear competition. Many large state-owned enterprises were broken up, forced to operate on a profit-basis for the first time, and forced to compete with one another and private enterprises. Private enterprises now make up a large share of the Chinese economy.

> It did improve for a few years, but the current administration has managed to reverse nearly all those improvements.

Do you mean Xi Jinping? Restrictions on foreign companies have continued to be loosened (e.g., the recent loosening of JV restrictions in the auto industry, which made Tesla's Shanghai factory possible).

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#399

Post by tboyd47 »

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…

If they would just repeal section 230 already, then the plug would be pulled from all these companies and China would no longer have any influence over what is said on the internet.

What we are in is a sort of techno-mercantilism where governments enlist large companies to deliver geopolitical influence in exchange for protection.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#400

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

ThomPete wrote: post #376
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sources I'm familiar with (mostly the FT) claim otherwise. See for example: https://www.ft.com/content/0c42dc7c-b927-477a-90b7-a202bbe4b... Or also this: https://www.ft.com/content/61988d2d-4c95-4a35-8273-d6980af04...

That article is mostly an opinion piece not really about the nuts and bolts of US intelligence concerns. I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there.

Like, when a President who disagrees publicly with his own intelligence agencies claims that something is the result of intelligence, I am very sceptical.

I'm very sceptical of US intelligence justifications in general (and have been since 2003) but even more so under the current administration.

"I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there. "

I really don't see any anti-Trump sentiment there, can you clarify what you mean?

Post reply on HN