US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September • Hacker News Board

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#61

Post by phendrenad2 » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #39

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China. If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vo…

> If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote). But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.

Would you support regulating or banning a conspiracy theory website, hosted in AWS US East 2?

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#62

Post by falcolas » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

dylan604 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote). But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.

> the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the l…

> I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked

Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill which could easily cover the website as well.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#63

Post by sandworm101 » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

markus_zhang wrote: post #10

Is September a fast track though? Outside of IT I feel everything is moving at slow motion. Sure they need armies of lawyers but I assume they already hired a lot? Why not a direct ban but requires the army of lawyers to request an appeal? I bet this would send motions faster -- they won't wait for 4 months.

Because this has little to do with TikToc, bytedance or even China. The specifics of whether TicTok is or isn't an actual national security concern will not be considered. The issues at the supreme court will be about constitutional powers, about whether congress may or may not pass laws mandating the sale of single companies, if done in support of national security. Such decisions should never be made hastily.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#64

Post by ZoomerCretin » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States. Every buyer will be blocked until they find one that is sufficiently hostile to the idea that Palestinians deserve human rights. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...

> sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States No, it does not. Your link doesn’t even say as much. It requires the President determine, “through an interagency process,” that the app is “no longer controlled by a foreign adversary” [1]. That language invokes the APA [2], explicitly rules out personal approval, and provides an objective endpoint that can be challenged in court. [1] https://d…

"Through an interagency process" of people handpicked by the President is not meaningfully distinct from what I said.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#65

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

ozzzy1 wrote: post #55

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practically everything passed by the Congress requires a coalition. That means single attributions are rarely correct. The protests added a coalition partner to the team, but that was marginal and far from the bulk of electeds’ (and voters’) concerns. First and foremost, this is and has been for a few years now about China.

That coalition is looking like Politicians wanting that juicy AIPAC money

> coalition is looking like Politicians wanting that juicy AIPAC money

They want those voters. Again, most people who called their electeds and have a voting record seemed to mention China, at least in New York, Arizona, Wyoming and California, where I know some of the folks.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#66

Post by ZoomerCretin » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States. We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the…

> We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. We’ll still have TikTok.com even if Bytedance refuses to sell.

And what's the next sentence you didn't quote?

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#67

Post by falcolas » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #19

markus_zhang wrote: post #10

Is September a fast track though? Outside of IT I feel everything is moving at slow motion. Sure they need armies of lawyers but I assume they already hired a lot? Why not a direct ban but requires the army of lawyers to request an appeal? I bet this would send motions faster -- they won't wait for 4 months.

Because due process. ALso, the bill doesn't ban Tiktok. It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity so the US security state can more easily threaten them and force them to censor their anti-imperialist content.

China announced years ago it would not support the divestment of China's interests in TikTok/Bytedance. So it's always been a de facto ban of TikTok hidden behind the justification that it's not a de jure ban.

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#68

Post by somenameforme » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States. We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the…

> We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. We’ll still have TikTok.com even if Bytedance refuses to sell.

Not necessarily. The bill [1] very much leaves room for the creation of the 'Great Firewall of America.' Two of the top things it prohibits are:

---

(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

---

That is strongly suggestive of the creation of a national firewall, or a defacto national firewall where internet service providers have to abide a Federal censorship list or face legal consequences. This is one of the many things, like the Patriot Act, that people are going to look back in a decade wondering why they ever thought this was a good idea. Well actually they'll probably just convince themselves that they never supported it - much easier.

[1] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#69

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #64

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States No, it does not. Your link doesn’t even say as much. It requires the President determine, “through an interagency process,” that the app is “no longer controlled by a foreign adversary” [1]. That language invokes the APA [2], explicitly rules out personal approval, and provides an objective endpoint that can be challenged in court. [1] https://d…

"Through an interagency process" of people handpicked by the President is not meaningfully distinct from what I said.

> "Through an interagency process" of people handpicked by the President is not meaningfully distinct from what I said

No, this is again wrong.

Picked by the President, confirmed by the Senate and required to adhere to an objective end per the APA’s process. The APA seems to be where your knowledge is lacking. (Also, if Bytedance disagrees with the outcome of their process, they can have the courts review. The law is written specifically to suspend absolute executive deference.)

Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

#70

Post by GordonS » Tue, May 28, 2024, 6:17 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #60

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States. We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the…

> Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the MSM. What pro-Israeli propaganda is the "MSM" putting out? Because all the pieces on the current invasion of Gaza I've been seeing have had a strong undercurrent of "what the fuck are you doing Israel?"

Since one of the most recent massacres a day or two ago, there has been a noticeable shift away from Israeli apologism. But the MSM has absolutely been staunchly Pro-Israel throughout the genocide.