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

461–470 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#461

Post by sdoering »

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

OK - then we have two cases, as nearly the same also happened in Germany[1]. In Germany the owner was sent to prison. As far as I am aware in Scotland the owner had to pay a fine [2].

I was initially wrong in assuming there would have been only one knucklehead on this planet doing something so obviously stupid.

Sorry for that.

[1]: https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article266388/Angeklagt-Herrc...

[2]: https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-in-...

Sorry for the sources being in German only.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#462

Post by dalbasal »

ArchD wrote: post #315
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.

No, the symmetry matters only in the relationship between the two countries, not in them mirroring each other in their domestic practices. The patriarch of a neighboring family does not welcome members of your family into their home, so why should your family welcome them into yours? On the other hand, that the patriarch practices domestic violence is another matter; you don't mirror that.

Those two are inseparable. China's policy towards foreign media is a domestic policy. Diplomacy and trade relations are subservient to that. They are worried about foreign influence on chinese political culture. That is what is being mirrored in the US by the tiktok case.

In any case, the has never been symmetry... or any intention to have symmetry. Each country has its goals. That's how trade deals always work.

China's primary goals were/are exports and the abovementioned protection against foreign and/or free media. The US' goals are US investment into china, an american-like legal framework for protecting these investments and adoption of US-compatible IP protections. That's what each side wanted. It reflects values. That's what they got. Both complain they didn't get enough of what they wanted.

It's not like the US is going to adopt elements of chinese patent law for the sake of symmetry.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#463

Post by ecmascript »

morelisp wrote: post #35
ecmascript wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sucks very much, I agree but at least they won't send police to your home if you write critically about it. Your post here is evidence for that the CCP is way, way worse since your post would be pretty much dangerous to write in China if it were about their government. If you really believe the US is as bad as China, you're living in a fantasy world my friend.

> they won't send police to your home if you write critically about it. Well, unless you're Jason Chen writing about the iPhone 4. (I don't think the US is "as bad as China" but I'm also not interested in meeting low bars. I do think it's nearly impossible to find a line China has crossed but the US has not. It's just a question of frequency.)

I am not really aware about that case, but isn't that Apple rather than the US government? Sure maybe the government sent the actual police officers but surely it must've been apple that pressured them to do it? Regarding being worse I can think of a few:

- Mass surveillance with immediate punishment if you break a rule, decided by bots.

- Concentration camps

- Giving people years of imprisonment for peacefully demonstrating in HK (which was legal afaik)

- Sending people out in different countries buying up masks in the covid-19 crisis and then re-selling them at a higher price.

- Giving citizen points/score to people and if you have a low enough score you can't ride specific trains / leave the country etc.

Just some examples at the top of my head, didn't mention organ harvesting since another person already did that.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#464

Post by dalbasal »

gostsamo wrote: post #326
dalbasal wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know that Daily Mail and the like love to hate Brussels but Brussels is only what it is let to be. That's trite, and insulting.

Not sure what "tried and insulting" means in this case, but it might be my english. My point is that you blame the symptoms and refuse to realize the root cause. Calling the EP "clown house" is also insulting and calling the EU bureaucracy outright incompetent is tabloid style simplification and I'm not sure what else I can compare it to. Yes, it is easy to say: "they are not strong leaders", but they can't be strong…

It means that your comment means "I know you are stupid, but..." and it ends reasonable discussion.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#465

Post by ryosuke »

smolder wrote: post #429
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).

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.

Of course there's plenty of reason to be skeptical, but given that the CCP have taken down ByteDance's apps in the past leads to me to believe that they're less willing to cooperate, whereas companies like Tencent seem fully aligned with the CCP.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-bytedance/china-ord...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#466

Post by qazpot »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #242
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'm sorry, but I'm not going to care about what the CCP does over there. I don't live over there, I don't work over there, I don't consume media produced over there. Trying to "get back" at China for frivolous reasons simply won't cut it.

But do you care what CCP does over here using their companies. Remember every chinese company is controlled by their government.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#467

Post by throwaway122378 »

robotron wrote: post #308
throwaway122378 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this

If a business can refuse service to anyone , so can social media sites, etc.

This is my whole point. Your thought process is stuck in the 19th and 20th century. Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc etc are not the same as your corner mom and pop shop. They are not businesses by the traditional sense of the word. We need new laws for new times

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#468

Post by throwaway122378 »

ineedasername wrote: post #300
throwaway122378 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this

Private organizations are allowed to decide how their property is used, including the type of speech it is used to facilitate. This is inherent to the concept of private property. I don't know why you think these companies are public forums. If there is a public forum in this space, it is the internet itself. People who dislike the limits of these platforms have a variety of other venues on the internet to choose fro…

If the internet is public forum to your point then anything built on top of the internet is built in the public forum.

Your view on private organizations is antiquated like our laws.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#469

Post by cryptica »

badRNG wrote: post #28

Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…

In 2008, the government bailed out big banks. In 2020, the government bailed out big corporations. Nobody gives a shit about precedents and principles anymore. Why should anyone give a shit about TikTok? Shut them down, lock them up! Nothing the government can do today is hypocritical, nothing compared to what they've already done!

I think the government should lock them up, simply because that would show elites the nonsensical reality which everyone else is subjected to! There are no principles. Whoever has the money and the most political connections can do whatever they want and everyone else can shut the hell up.

It's about time the elite neoliberals actually participated in their own system on a 'level playing field' (as in, the rigged-game field which everyone else is forced to play on)... There is no free market, hasn't been one for over a decade.

The government should ban TikTok because that would send a powerful message to technocratic neoliberals; let them know what unrestrained capitalism is really about.

Our corporate masters think that employees should bow down to them, but they will not bow down to their own masters (Trump). It's about time they find out what happens when you don't bow down to your master. Welcome to neoliberal capitalism.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#470

Post by Proziam »

joshuamorton wrote: post #381
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?

"things you think are false" and "libelous" are, in the US, vastly different standards.

I'm familiar with the standards and I stand by my assessment with full confidence. Twitter mobs routinely make up facts and spread completely unfounded misinformation that is demonstrably contrary to what evidence suggests. That's 3/4 of the criteria right then and there.

[0] To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Now what you need to do is show damages. Lost your job? Deplatformed or demonetized? Vendors, partners, or clients cut ties? Victim of harassment (online or otherwise)?

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

Post reply on HN