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

411–420 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#411

Post by mrkstu »

Proziam wrote: post #377
mrkstu wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?

A very focused rider required on contracts that employment can't be terminated due to political speech outside of work hours. Make that one of a small handful of similar riders required by companies to hire 'union' members and I think you'd end up with a LOT of people joining that union.

It would remove a lot of leverage of the twitter mobs if they know ahead of time the target is protected.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#412

Post by free_rms »

hobofan wrote: post #285
fvv wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not all black or white, but I can tell which gray is close to white and which is close to black, and you?

Can you? So China is close to black. Iran has strong internet censorship, so I guess close to black? What about Russia, where AFAIK a normal citizen is pretty free to access information and express their opinion, but bigger political figures are regularly poisoned? What about Turkey? People here in the comments are already pointing out Spain and the USA, which most people would probably assign to the "free world". Of…

It all comes down to geopolitics. Iran and China will get the bad cop treatment, while Saudi Arabia gets kid gloves.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#413

Post by vorpalhex »

yibg wrote: post #407
vorpalhex wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why we're banning them using the tool for that situation (a foreign company who is acting in a way unaligned to the interests of US citizens) and not arresting them. We are under no duty to allow the CCP to act within our borders.

If we ban any company that complies with laws we don't like, taken to the extreme doesn't that lead to every country banning companies from every other country that doesn't have laws that map exactly to their own?

Do you really think banning CCP backed companies from hoovering up the personal data of Americans en masse is an extreme?

Every country enforces their laws. If a US company violated gdpr, I would expect them to be fined and banned from the EU.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#414

Post by krapp »

mrkstu wrote: post #411
Proziam wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?

A very focused rider required on contracts that employment can't be terminated due to political speech outside of work hours. Make that one of a small handful of similar riders required by companies to hire 'union' members and I think you'd end up with a LOT of people joining that union. It would remove a lot of leverage of the twitter mobs if they know ahead of time the target is protected.

Define "political speech," bearing in mind that everything that can be proven not to be "political speech" under that definition is implicitly fair game as grounds for termination in this case.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#415

Post by pnw_hazor »

horsemessiah wrote: post #304
mas3god wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your country throws millions into forced labor camps and forces them to disown their culture

The U.S. has 22% of the worlds prisoners, despite only having 4% of the population, if you really wanna talk about prison.

US also has 22%+ of the worlds wealth. Prisons and justice systems are expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth_by_coun...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#416

Post by username90 »

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…

So basically China should be free to limit free speech all over the world? They are a big market and can therefore force companies to comply. This is what will happen if western governments don't intervene.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#417

Post by kube-system »

bootloop wrote: post #7

Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

The issue with Chinese tech companies isn't really a matter of personal privacy -- it's a matter of national security.

Chinese tech companies can (and often are) required to work directly in conjunction with the Chinese military to further their goals and operations.

Also, the US has separate agencies and requirements for setting domestic policy vs foreign policy. The authorities that oversee what Facebook does is entirely different from the authorities that oversee what TikTok does -- so this is not a matter of a single group 'choosing' between the two. The laws of the US intentionally have more rigor for domestic issues.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#418

Post by kube-system »

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 :).

Americans, especially the ones a foreign power would be interested in blackmailing, also travel. In some ~70 countries, homosexuality is a crime.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#419

Post by yibg »

vorpalhex wrote: post #413
yibg wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we ban any company that complies with laws we don't like, taken to the extreme doesn't that lead to every country banning companies from every other country that doesn't have laws that map exactly to their own?

Do you really think banning CCP backed companies from hoovering up the personal data of Americans en masse is an extreme? Every country enforces their laws. If a US company violated gdpr, I would expect them to be fined and banned from the EU.

This isn't talking about banning a specific company for violating local laws. This is talking about banning all companies from a specific country because that country has laws the US doesn't agree with. Should Europe ban all American companies because the US doesn't have GDPR? Or flip it around, which US law did Tiktok violate?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#420

Post by kube-system »

dahfizz wrote: post #174
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.

> that's clearly a national security threat and different from wanting data profiles on everyone. What's the threat model here? Certainly ousting LGBT people is scummy, but I'm not sure I understand how it jeopardizes the security of the nation. You could argue that the ability to blackmail government officials compromises national security, but lots of things in that "data profile" could be used for blackmail. I don…

>> that's clearly a national security threat and different from wanting data profiles on everyone. > What's the threat model here? Certainly ousting LGBT people is scummy, but I'm not sure I understand how it jeopardizes the security of the nation.

Any kind of blackmail can be valuable, but one that is still illegal in many parts of the world is super valuable.

* Gay government employee travels on official business to one of the ~70 countries where homosexuality is illegal

* Chinese military operative threatens to turn them in to authorities if they don't cooperate

Post reply on HN