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

441–450 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#441

Post by glial »

gruez wrote: post #404
dalbasal wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the CPC ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies? They want control over media, especially political content. They want to make sure speech, affiliation and such is under their control. Are you saying the US should adopt this approach? Trade fairness is a red herring.

>Are you saying the US should adopt this approach? Is this what's happening right now? Is there political speech being conducted on tiktok that the president doesn't like? Can the same speech be found on other platforms (eg. twitter)?

Tiktok users embarrassed him in Tulsa.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#442

Post by scarface74 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #268
dreamcompiler wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. If you don't like your bridge club or church, pick a different one. But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government.

This has been hashed out many times. Government cannot be allowed to use private companies as a shield. For instance (this has been tried in the US/canada/uk etc) can a city violate the rights of citizens if it hires a "private" company to conduct policing? Can a city ban certain people from walking the streets if it puts those streets in the hands of a "private" holding company? So what if the government partners wi…

In fact, the Supreme Court just had two rulings.

1. Religious institutions should have the same rights to funds as any other school.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/supreme-court-religiou...

2. Job Bias laws don’t protect teachers in religious schools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-scho...

In affect, government funds are used to support schools that are allowed to discriminate.

It’s not just LGBTQ rights. Some religious schools think that interracial dating/marriage is a “sin”.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#443

Post by simion314 »

kube-system wrote: post #423
simion314 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 distri…

And what prevents some political party you don't like just use money to buy data from FB directly , or if getting the data is harder this days use the ad targeting and get same result that you don't like(make some people stay at home and not vote for your favorite and mobilize the guys in the group you don't like)

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#444

Post by sudosysgen »

president wrote: post #437
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.

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.

I didn't. I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department.

I'm willing to accept that the information might be true, which is why I'm asking for a reliable source. If some information is only reported by a source that is very interested and was created for propaganda, it is likely false.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#445

Post by newen »

square_usual wrote: post #110

All else aside, > As a company we have always focused on transparency, so we want to explain why we are taking this step. is patent bullshit, even more than the usual marketing speak. They sure as heck weren't transparent about hiding posts from unattractive or LGBTQ people [1], or when they waited hours before calling police on a suicide which happened live on the platform to protect their image [2], or even about h…

TikTok is fun because it has funny videos and dances and memes. If a company doesn't want its content to fill up with toxic politics, they shouldn't be forced to.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#446

Post by president »

sudosysgen wrote: post #444
president wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't. I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. I'm willing to accept that the information might be true, which is why I'm asking for a reliable source. If some information is only reported by a source that is very interested and wa…

> I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department.

This is not a universally accepted truth. You made a claim and didn't back it up. It's not that hard. Honestly, I'm not even trying to defend RFA but it's irritating to see people make claims without substantiating them and then trying to argue about it afterwards.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#447

Post by RandoHolmes »

JetSetWilly wrote: post #375
sdoering wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happened in Germany, where he went to jail, because he regularly showed forbidden Nazi insignia as well as regularly doing the Hitler salute and shouting "Sieg Heil" - all of which is forbidden by law in Germany. Especially after he was already on probation for earlier transgressions against these laws. He did not go to jail because he "only" teached his dog (it was actually his dog) a poor taste trick.

No, it happened in Scotland where none of these excuses apply, and the guy certainly was doing it as a joke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

Yep, that's the guy I was thinking of. Glad to see I wasn't that far off the mark.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#448

Post by RandoHolmes »

smt88 wrote: post #432
RandoHolmes wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say potato, I say potahto...

Turns out tax status is enforced by laws. Weird, I know.

"well akshually...". just don't.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#449

Post by mmmmmbop »

SergeAx wrote: post #438
mmmmmbop wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!

Of course the U.S. has no authority over any two foreign companies that do no business within the country. However, if one of the two companies engages in interstate commerce in the U.S. -- which TikTok does -- it is considered to be a U.S. business [1] for the purposes of the CFIUS review.

[1] https://casetext.com/regulation/code-of-federal-regulations/...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#450

Post by selectodude »

dash2 wrote: post #365
selectodude wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't bought anything off Amazon in awhile. I'm sure I still use AWS when I browse the web but I'm not militant in my lack of support. Hopefully they move somewhere else, but it's fine regardless. I'd be on the next flight out if there was some sort of undocumented American community somewhere in Western Europe or something. But that simply doesn't exist.

Last I looked, they were all in Berlin, pushing up the rent and talking about their startup.

I do love Berlin :/
Post reply on HN