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

451–460 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#451

Post by t0mbstone »

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... amend the constitution?

Maybe free speech actually SHOULD be free everywhere, private interests be damned?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#452

Post by amanaplanacanal »

vorpalhex wrote: post #356
86J8oyZv wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the arrests in Portland, does that mean every country should ban American products?

Most countries arrest people who are breaking windows, setting things on fire, engaging in riots after being told to disperse and illegally carrying weapons. All of the people who were arrested were charged and then released (pending bail, recognizance, etc per Washington law). You may feel those actions are just, but being just does not make them legal.

It’s Oregon, not Washington. And my understanding is that plenty of people have been arrested then released without being charged.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#453

Post by swordsmith »

sudosysgen wrote: post #388
singlow wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't that a different organization that operated in the 50s? The modern RFA started in the 90s and gets federal funding but is not associated with the CIA. They probably should have used a new name, but is there any other reason you think they are a CIA rag?

Right, so it went from direct CIA command to command by another independent unaccountable US State Department agency in order to further the exact same goal, because of optics. There is no difference between the two. It went from one three-letter agency to another three-letter agency, and it's goals and methods did not change. When US intelligence has credible proof of something and want to be trusted, they go to rep…

Not if the "reputable media" are pressured/threatened by CCP

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#454

Post by mcherm »

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…

You say that

> The regulations make it clear that the President alone determines 'whether a transaction threatens national security.'

HOWEVER, I maintain that this authority can only be exercised under certain restrictions. For instance, if the President were to declare that all social media companies that "fact check" his statements threatened national security that would be a violation of the first amendment (free speech). As such, the courts would be responsible for overturning his declaration.

Similarly, if the President were to just declare ByteDance to be a threat to national security without even having a reason for doing so, I maintain it would violate the requirement to engage in due process. He doesn't need to have a GOOD reason, but it can't be "because I feel like it" or "because they said mean things about me".

I'm not clear on whether the right to due process is inapplicable because ByteDance voluntarily chose not to undergo the review.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#455

Post by meddlepal »

nemo44x wrote: post #337
meddlepal wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a feature until Congress gave in and allowed the scope and usage of executive orders to grow thus allowing the president to bypass congress in a lot of cases. Now congress basically acts as a defensive block to allow a president to enact laws err executive orders at will. Oops.

Yeah I think it’s time to begin limiting federal power. I feel like a coalition of Democrats and Republicans could come together on this. Everyone being so occupied with national law is driving us crazy. Time to give more power to states and use a weakened federal government for some general oversight, monetary policy, and foreign affairs. Decriminalized marijuana has been a good experiment in allowing states to make…

No disagreement from me, this is how our country was supposed to operate.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#456

Post by apta »

jayd16 wrote: post #336
ArchD wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current ar…

I don't really want to be like China so "but China did it" is not convincing in the slightest.

What's the solution? Sit back and watch them take over and destroy the economy?

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#457

Post by apta »

cblconfederate wrote: post #45
StreamBright wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. In the USA. China has done is many times.

It looks like we should be expecting China to export more of its policies to the US ?

Slippery slope fallacy.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#458

Post by perryizgr8 »

newen wrote: post #445
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.

Sure, they can sell to American owners and continue their app as is.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#459

Post by sudosysgen »

president wrote: post #446
sudosysgen wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is a universally accepted truth that you should not trust actors with vested interests and a history of lying, yes.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#460

Post by sudosysgen »

swordsmith wrote: post #453
sudosysgen wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so it went from direct CIA command to command by another independent unaccountable US State Department agency in order to further the exact same goal, because of optics. There is no difference between the two. It went from one three-letter agency to another three-letter agency, and it's goals and methods did not change. When US intelligence has credible proof of something and want to be trusted, they go to rep…

Not if the "reputable media" are pressured/threatened by CCP

Sure. So now the only source we're going to trust is the US State Department. Which, by the way, has quite the history in threatening journalists too.

Also, many news sources are already banned in China and have nothing to lose.

Post reply on HN