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

431–440 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#431

Post by smt88 »

brandonmenc wrote: post #402
smt88 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. You have to remember that "corporation" can mean any group organized for a purpose. It can be Exxon, but it can also be Planned Parenthood or AARP. People who can't speak loudly enough by themselves have a right to organize into a corporation, pool their money, and speak loudly together. You can argue that a business should not be bot…

> corporations have 1st Amendment rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't forbidding them from censoring user content orthogonal to this?

I was responding only to a single previous post[1]. If you think it's out of context, take it up with them, I guess.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24341525

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#432

Post by smt88 »

RandoHolmes wrote: post #343
smt88 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. You have to remember that "corporation" can mean any group organized for a purpose. It can be Exxon, but it can also be Planned Parenthood or AARP. People who can't speak loudly enough by themselves have a right to organize into a corporation, pool their money, and speak loudly together. You can argue that a business should not be bot…

It would be no more impossible than having a non-profit, it would just require a new legal status.

Non-profits are a tax status, not a legal status.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#433

Post by yibg »

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…

I think I'm more OK with a blanket ban. I guess it'd just be an embargo against China. At least it'll be consistent.

As it is there is a sense of unfairness I think. TikTok seems to be singled out with ambiguous and hard to pin down "national security" issues.

People point to FB and google being blocked in China, but at least the CCP can point to laws they're not complying with. And presumably if FB and google complied with Chinese laws (like Bing), they'd be able to operate there. With TikTok there aren't any laws anyone can point to that they're breaking. For example if there is a law that says social media platforms cannot censor users' content. As it is, this is just giving ammunition to the CCP to point to how unfair the US is being and how the west just wants to keep China and Chinese companies down.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#434

Post by tboyd47 »

tzs wrote: post #403
tboyd47 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I fail to see how section 230 affects this it all.

The whole debate over free speech online is only happening because 1) content is passing through a bottleneck of only a few companies and 2) those few companies have decided to actively censor the content.

These two things could not exist simultaneously without an explicit guarantee of legal protection from the government for online publishers of user content. Without that guarantee of protection it's doubtful that any platform could have grown as large as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or Google without taking a completely hands-off approach to user content (i.e. as a "common carrier"). The threat of litigation would have forced them to pre-emptively moderate all content just like print media and television.

In the 1990s Congress decided that it's okay for the internet to operate on different legal rules from the rest of society. They decided that internet companies can make editorial choices about their content freely without being legally held responsible for those choices, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. Online speech is now the domain of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and they have free reign over their virtual kingdoms without regard for any other legal system.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#435

Post by mas3god »

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.

At least the prisons aren't re-education camps to worship USA culture and the Federal Government. At least I can publicly talk about evil government abuse of its citizens, unlike Chinese people living under the CCP's shadow.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#436

Post by SergeAx »

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…

What are the difference between state ban and state censorship? Asking for a friend.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#437

Post by president »

sudosysgen wrote: post #349
president wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you're just making a bad faith argument.

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.

You literally made a claim without providing any evidence. Just because the CIA created something doesn't mean it's false. Do you hear yourself? And I'm the one being downvoted...unbelievable.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#438

Post by SergeAx »

mmmmmbop wrote: post #383
mcherm wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority. However, Congress cannot delegate a power they do not have. The US Constitution specifically states that: > No Bill of Attainder [law t…

You are spot-on about the constitution guaranteeing that laws must not be passed just to punish a certain company. What I believe you are missing, however, is that there is existing law that the divesting order is based on. Any acquisition involving foreign commerce is subject to the approval of the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). Following is an explanation taken from a recent Congressi…

I am quite inexperienced in US law, but are you just told that acquisition of one foreign company by another foreign company should be reviewed by some random US committee?!

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#439

Post by jariel »

dragonwriter wrote: post #373
jariel wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In liberal democracies we value freedom of expression." Try walking into a restaurant and wailing on about Trump. In 'Western Democracies' we also value private spaces and the ability for private groups to make their own rules. Freedom of expression does not apply to YouTube in the 'Liberal Democratic' sense. 1) Private businesses can make rules for the content they want to have up. 2) In public you can do mostly as…

> Freedom of expression does not apply to YouTube in the 'Liberal Democratic' sense. It does, just in that YouTube is the possessor of the right, not the restricted governing party.

So I see what you are saying, however, I don't think that's the case.

I don't think YouTube would, for example, cite 'their 1st Amendment Rights' as legitimacy for censoring content on their site.

Post reply on HN