Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#41

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dylan604 wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China. If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vo…

> If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote). But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.

> the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work

Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the light of day.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#42

Post by throwitaway222 »

neilv wrote: post #22

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "I…

The other angle is war. Modern war is not necessarily bombing campaigns (even if we have 2 going on now). It's control of other countries citizens, even if through their own words.

For example if representational content of people falling in love with Osama Bin Laden is a total of 3 hours of content, and there are a billion hours of guitar playing good ole American BBQ content, TikTok can show the 3 Bid Laden hours to most people and 0.0000005% of the American BBQ content.

War through means we haven't figured out yet.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#43

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pbiggar wrote: post #37

The claim that this is is about national security is absurd. It's about Palestine, and Blinken and Romney admitted as much. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato... > Romney replied, "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relati…

Practically everything passed by the Congress requires a coalition. That means single attributions are rarely correct. The protests added a coalition partner to the team, but that was marginal and far from the bulk of electeds’ (and voters’) concerns. First and foremost, this is and has been for a few years now about China.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#44

Post by ZoomerCretin »

neilv wrote: post #22

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "I…

The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States.

We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the MSM.

Even Mitt Romney admitted a lot of the pressure to ban TikTok came from the pro-Israel lobbyists: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#45

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #40
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times If you’re referring to McCarthyism, note that his House Un-American proceedings lost steam when they were thrown out by the courts [1]. (It was also limited to government employment, where the state has more power.) Otherwise, this is just a slippery-slope argument that can be used against any regulation, including the First Amendment. [1] https://en.m.wiki…

It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11. You used to be able to get on an airplane without scanning your retinas. You used to be able to walk into a bank and make a transaction without it being immediately reported to the IRS. Your private correspondence was not scanned and digitized by the post office. All the above freedoms, and so many more, are not only gone they are illegal. Slippery sl…

> It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11

Incorrect. Focus on the argument.

> Slippery slopes exist

Sure. But concluding by arguing their existence is a literal fallacy.

Another slippery slope: food safety. Or our aversion to animal and child cruelty. Compounding social effects that build on themselves. That these exist isn’t disputed. That they exist also doesn’t mean they always manifest. In this case, there is zero evidence of compounding and every one of moderation through iteration. (Contrast Trump’s first efforts with the House’s first bill with what finally passed.)

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#46

Post by ZoomerCretin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because due process. ALso, the bill doesn't ban Tiktok. It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity so the US security state can more easily threaten them and force them to censor their anti-imperialist content.

> It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity No, it does not. (It requires sale to a non-foreign adversary controlled person. A sale to an Indian, South African or Brazilian company would be fine.)

The sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States. Every buyer will be blocked until they find one that is sufficiently hostile to the idea that Palestinians deserve human rights.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #44
neilv wrote: post #22

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "I…

The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States. We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the…

> We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN.

We’ll still have TikTok.com even if Bytedance refuses to sell.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#48

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #46
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity No, it does not. (It requires sale to a non-foreign adversary controlled person. A sale to an Indian, South African or Brazilian company would be fine.)

The sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States. Every buyer will be blocked until they find one that is sufficiently hostile to the idea that Palestinians deserve human rights. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...

> sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States

No, it does not. Your link doesn’t even say as much.

It requires the President determine, “through an interagency process,” that the app is “no longer controlled by a foreign adversary” [1]. That language invokes the APA [2], explicitly rules out personal approval, and provides an objective endpoint that can be challenged in court.

[1] https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240311/HR%207521%20Up... § 2(g)(6)

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#49

Post by bydo »

RandomLensman wrote: post #9
Leary wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foreign propaganda is allowed. (Lamont vs. Postmaster General) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...

Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?

If we regulate the Internet like we do the airwaves, "obscenity, indecency, and profanity" are now illegal.[0]

>It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

>Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations. In addition, the United States Department of Justice has authority to pursue criminal violations. Violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.

[0]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit...

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#50

Post by aw1621107 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies.

> think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies Source? Section 310 of the Communications Act, which bars licenses from being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof,” was written in 1934 [1]. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed in 1938 in response to (slash fear of) Nazi propaganda [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te…

> > think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies

> Source?

The first thing that comes to mind is Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC [0], where part of the holding relied on the limited available radio spectrum compared to other publication mediums.

[0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/

Post reply on HN