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

421–430 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#421

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

gruez wrote: post #405
ryosuke wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. My understanding is that ByteDance has tried to maintain some distance with the Chinese government in the past, but this pressure from the US essentially forces it to reverse course. It's antithetical to the US's purported objective of promoting a more liberalized market economy in China (though I suppose that was never something this administration really cared about).

>It's antithetical to the US's purported objective of promoting a more liberalized market economy in China (though I suppose that was never something this administration really cared about). You're missing the context behind why that policy was in place. A big part of that was the hope that China would democratize in the process. Clearly that has not happened so it makes sense to pull the plug. No point giving out fr…

It was never about giving "free concessions." It was about opening up China to foreign investment, so that foreign companies could make returns. It's difficult to overstate just how massively foreign companies profited from trade liberalization with China.

Foreign companies were able to earn large returns in China because China's tariffs went from ~40% to ~3%, restrictions on foreign investment were reduced or eliminated in most sectors, big state-owned enterprises were split up and forced to operate like regular companies that have to earn a profit, IP courts were created, along with many other changes large and small.

The sudden cries that China took advantage of the West are just completely out of touch with reality.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#422

Post by darawk »

francesca wrote: post #77
darawk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China bans plenty of US apps and services. Facebook, for instance. They are exactly comparable.

If you comply with China's laws you can operate there. These US companies just don't want to deal with that.

If you comply with US laws, you can operate here too. The problem with Chinese companies is that they cannot credibly commit to complying with US law.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#423

Post by kube-system »

simion314 wrote: post #12
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.

They would need to explain how TicTok brainwashes americans to vote(or not vote) but Facebook and Twitter categorically does not do the same thing. If "brainwashing" on social media exists then all should be made illegal not only the a small subset.

> They would need to explain how TicTok brainwashes americans to vote(or not vote) but Facebook and Twitter categorically does not do the same thing.

The easiest answer is: because ByteDance said so.

ByteDance has a internal board staffed by the CCP, and their CEO Zhang Yiming has even:

> promised that the firm would in the future “Further deepen cooperation with authoritative [official party] media, elevating distribution of authoritative media content, ensuring that authoritative [official party] media voices are broadcast to strength.” [0]

> If "brainwashing" on social media exists then all should be made illegal not only the a small subset.

The US, like almost every other country, regulates international commerce differently than domestic commerce. The US intentionally makes it harder to regulate domestic matters in order to protect the rights of the people the government is tasked with protecting. They even go so far as having separate agencies responsible for domestic matters vs foreign matters.

[0]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/bytedance-cant-outrun-b...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#424

Post by Ancapistani »

sdoering wrote: post #346
dexen wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I am not firm with US law, and there is something I just do not understand - but would like to. If YT is just some form of medium, not the "speaker"/provider and by that not allowed to remove content under its own freedom of speech, why is it then allowed (even forced) to block my content under copyright laws if it infringes someone's copyright. Why not just route the DMCA request to me and I would need to react. Isn…

My understanding is that the DMCA contains specific provisions requiring hosts to remove content upon request, and stripping them of their protections if they do not do so.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#425

Post by BTCOG »

Domenic_S wrote: post #378
phatfish wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost as if government regulation relating to monopolies and "too big to fail" corporations actually means something? Maybe a competent government would actually advocate and enforce laws to stop one company controlling your life.

Lots of bad effects can happen. Imagine you live in a place with one internet provider (most of us) and no cell service. Then imagine that because of something you said, that internet provider cancels your account and doesn't want to work with you anymore. Especially in covid times, that's basically barring you from working. Or say you live in a small town with one grocery store, and they don't like your BLM tshirt s…

A sidenote that this interestingly showcases (to me) how people lived and ate before giant grocery store chains. Folks were a lot more decentralized and trade/bartered/bought with their farm from those nearby in the community. Why did we reach a point where one dangerously relies on solely a just-in-time commercial grocery outfit just to live?

And I agree, the internet monopoly is a huge issue. The internet should become widely available to all. I would say as a utility, but that then points out the fact that I have one giant power company that could also, censor me and cut me off from my only main source of power... hmmm...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#426

Post by m11a »

ddorian43 wrote: post #109
m11a wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that it's not just about a Chinese entity. They employ a lot of people directly, and all those 'influencers' on TikTok also make their livelihoods from their TikTok work. Not all could easily migrate to other platforms. This is akin to banning YouTube. You're not just banning the company. There's a whole community, of content consumers and creators with jobs, behind it.

It's a new market, it's ok if it fails quickly.

If it fails by natural causes, sure.

If it fails by government policy, that's an awful outcome for tech and the future. We need to encourage new markets, not end them. Tech is ending old markets as it is, if we're not encouraging new ones we're going to end up with increasing unemployment.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#427

Post by cc23 »

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…

Why do we care if China censors things? Don't US social media companies censor large swaths of content? The reddit bans just happened. You can call it hate speech, but some disagree. Yet those communities and posts were still censored. What is the difference if it's a business or a government doing the censoring?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#428

Post by zalkota »

cc23 wrote: post #427
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…

Why do we care if China censors things? Don't US social media companies censor large swaths of content? The reddit bans just happened. You can call it hate speech, but some disagree. Yet those communities and posts were still censored. What is the difference if it's a business or a government doing the censoring?

Reddit should be banned from the US.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#429

Post by smolder »

ryosuke wrote: post #130
euix wrote: post #100

Interesting article in Bloomberg just now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/bytedance... . The kicker is at the end: “He thought that by making a promise to follow international standards or rules he would be able to escape the regulation or the kind of pressure from the American government,” said Ding. “But I think now he realizes he might have been wrong and that if he doesn’t want to sell the com…

Exactly. My understanding is that ByteDance has tried to maintain some distance with the Chinese government in the past, but this pressure from the US essentially forces it to reverse course. It's antithetical to the US's purported objective of promoting a more liberalized market economy in China (though I suppose that was never something this administration really cared about).

I wouldn't put any amount of trust in their claimed independence from the CCP. After all, that's exactly what a CCP vehicle for foreign intelligence ops would say.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#430

Post by triceratops »

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…

I think you need to re-read that law yourself. Section 230 holds Internet platforms not liable for illegal or libelous speech because they aren't the publisher of that speech. If you read on it also says explicitly they can't be held accountable for:

"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

Any Internet platform can moderate to their heart's content, even if it goes beyond the extent demanded by the law. There are no constitutional free speech protections on the Internet. The "publisher/platform" thing is pure horseshit spread by people who cry about "online censorship". Unfortunately that tactic seems to be working.

Post reply on HN