Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#551

Post by hintymad »

_2d30 wrote: post #390
throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because there is no "TikTok" ban and never has been. There is a "TikTok cannot be controlled by the CCP" law. TikTok is completely legal under the law as long as they divest it. However, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.

Exactly. And what puzzles me is that the evidences offered by the Congress was quite speculative, whether it's about data collection, content manipulation, influence of Chinese laws, or the potential future threat. Yet ByteDance chose not to argue about the evidence, but to argument about 1A.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#553

Post by prpl »

bastardoperator wrote: post #263
briffle wrote: post #21

Still have no good answer on why its bad for a company that is supposedly under Chineese influence to collect this kind of information on us, and adjust and tweak an 'algorith' for displaying content. But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? Wouldn't the right solution be to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic?

It's perfectly fine for a South African immigrant to do it, I really don't understand the problem either.

You don't understand the difference between a non-resident corporation under control of an adversary and a naturalized citizen?

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#554

Post by MuffinFlavored »

elzbardico wrote: post #181

This is going to be an interesting experiment: A widely used social network across the world WITHOUT american content. Until now, the closest thing we had like this were national our regional networks like Russia's vk, but Vk was never truly popular outside Russian speaking countries. Now we, for the first time ever, will have the situation where a social network has global reach but without american content. Will it…

Is TikTok big in Europe? Is Europe big on social media?

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#555

Post by corimaith »

mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

Rather I think this a good example of how people go through the steps of delegimitizing institutions if it dosen't agree with their opinion. If the Supreme Court's opinion is "shaky" then I guess the Pro-TikTokers would teetering on pole in the middle on the ocean.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#556

Post by mmooss »

dbl000 wrote: post #505

[dead]

Strategically, they start with cases the public is more likely to support, and then the precedent, law, norms, mechanisms, etc. are all there to take it further. Another common step is demonization, in this case of anything Chinese, TikTok, and, to a degree, of anything not 'American'.

Look at oppression of unpopular groups. They've started with groups, such as undocumented immigrants and trans people, already unpopular groups and easy targets. They demonize them extensively and make oppression acceptable to the public. Now there is precedent; by now, people don't even object to it on the grounds of human rights, justice, or humanitarianism; stereotype, prejudice, and hatred are no longer taboo. Soon there will be camps, a police force accustomed to and trained in mass arrest, and a public accustomed to it as a legitimate mechanism.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#557

Post by slowmovintarget »

throwaway199956 wrote: post #347
mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publication s were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because the law bans the operation of software by a foreign adversary. It does not ban speech.

Legal precedent holds that source code (the expressive part of software) is speech, but that executing software (the functional part) is not speech. Even when the operation conveys speech, the ban is on the functional operation of the software, so the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#558

Post by liontwist »

the_clarence wrote: post #480
legitster wrote: post #119

TikTok is perhaps the most impressively addictive social media app ever created. The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive. There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction. Geopolitics aside, I think everyone is kind of aware that social media is…

Why are people upvoting this.

Internet loves those public school history fact references.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#560

Post by nashashmi »

_2d30 wrote: post #390
throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because there is no "TikTok" ban and never has been. There is a "TikTok cannot be controlled by the CCP" law. TikTok is completely legal under the law as long as they divest it. However, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.

It doesn’t label ccp. It denigrates four countries as foreign adversaries. And then allows the president to remove any company located in those adversaries.

Kaspersky was banned this way. Tiktok was hard coded in the law to be banned. The law allows for sale. It doesn’t enforce sale.

Post reply on HN