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

House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#601

Post by maxwell »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #592
Kerrick wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our Constitution also says, "The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Forcing a sale of TikTok so it's not foreign (with a punishment of banning if they don't), especially while making no such law for U.S. controlled competitors, is no more an infringement upon free speech than introducing a tariff or trade restriction on German-manufactured printing presses while leaving domest…

What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies? It isnt that easy.

That would be great! Do Apple first.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#602

Post by maybelsyrup »

jrockway wrote: post #486
codekaze wrote: post #213

I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete…

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of…

> People are just mad that it's telling kids to eat tide pods and then they get sick.

I think it’s more accurate to say instead that “the oligarchs who run this place are just mad that it’s telling kids to support Palestine”.

But in general I agree with your point!

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#603

Post by thomastjeffery »

Sammi wrote: post #548
jrockway wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of…

The US constitution is for the people in the US. Chinese companies don't apply. If you want to grant freedom of speech protection under the US constitution for TikTok, then TikTok must be owned by US people.

Your point is that freedom of speech is not freedom to read. I sincerely disagree.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#604

Post by Spivak »

Miner49er wrote: post #419
nadermx wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels mostly right. Although, it may not make it past the senate, and it might not get signed if it goes by the president. Especially since he's campaigning on TikTok. What amazes me is how people's view in these threads are for a ban. For a counter point, the EFF thinks congress should not ban apps[0] [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/congress-should-give-u...

Biden said he would sign it.

And then presumably smacked down in the courts for an obvious 1A violation.

Is there any legal reason they think surely this one is constitutional?

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#605

Post by graeme »

andrewla wrote: post #597
corytheboyd wrote: post #323

This is going to be a shit show. I don’t even really know where I stand. On one hand, we have to acknowledge that an adversarial government has massively succeeded in installing a botnet in our population— even if that wasn’t the initial intent of ByteDance, it’s effectively true now. On the other hand, you can’t stop people from installing spyware, donating money to fraudster politicians, surrendering themselves to…

Can you expand on what you mean by "installing a botnet"? As a term of art, a botnet refers to a collection of computing devices that can be controlled remotely. I am not aware of any such capability in TikTok itself. Presumably they could attempt to offer a new version of TikTok that allowed arbitrary remote execution or one-time behavior, but this would need to get past Apple's app review process and would be subje…

They're using the word botnet as an analogy. You have to read the whole sentence "installing a botnet in our population".

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#606

Post by aunty_helen »

zachmu wrote: post #530
jrockway wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of…

Tiktok isn't "some website", it is partially owned and controlled by the CCP, which influences what content gets shown to Americans. A majority of zoomers get most of their news and information primarily from this platform, which again is under the influence of a hostile foreign government. (TikTok also spies on US citizens for the CCP, but let's keep this restricted to the free speech argument about the ban). We act…

I feel like the twitter files weren’t sufficiently long enough ago to make this one sided argument.

All governments have their hand in the cook jar.

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#607

Post by kurthr »

p_j_w wrote: post #586
daveguy wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is not a US citizen.

The constitution is explicit when it carves out exemptions for citizens and non citizens. The first amendment is not one of them.

The constitution, or the bill of rights we appear to be talking about, or all the amendments? This seems wrong on the face of it.

The only mentions of citizenship I know of are for voting, juries, and elected positions.

By your argument Citizen's United wasn't just an abomination, but barred the congress from limiting foreign political donations, because money is speech? Interesting that's never been brought up.

I mean, I'm willing to listen to the ACLU, but the argument that forcing the sale of a corporation limits free speech is fairly weak, when commercial speech is routinely limited... as it should be. Do you think there is a corporate free speech right to sell personal information? What limits to profit on commercial speech can there be? If an unprofitable social media app were forced to close down, wouldn't laws allowing collection of debts be violations of the 1st amendment?

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#608

Post by aprilthird2021 »

matwood wrote: post #468
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, every person I talk to thinks it's crazy that the US is this close to banning an app because it doesn't like the content. The idea that Americans aren't allowed to view "propaganda" is insane and very against the ideas of free speech. But I come online and there's so much support for banning an app who hires lots of devs in Silicon Valley itself...

It's not about being allowed, but more about being steered. And yes, other social media platforms have similar issues with algorithmic feeds, but they are currently a less clear national security threat. Though, one could argue they are radicalizing internal threats.

>less clear national security threat. Though, one could argue they are radicalizing internal threats.

I don't and will never buy this argument that showing people certain media causes violence or is a security threat. People doing violent things is a security threat. What they read or believed that led them to do that is not. Freedom of expression is vital and defending it comes with serious negative consequences. It means defending heinous views, some which have only ever been linked with radicals and violence. But they are allowed to say those views and to say them to other people. And people are allowed to read, watch, and see those views.

I'll die on that hill any day

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#609

Post by janalsncm »

zaphar wrote: post #568
codedokode wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a citizen should be more scared of his own govt rather than foreign govt because foreign govt won't arrest him. So for an American TikTok is probably less threat than Facebook or Twitter.

I don't even know how you reach that kind of conclusion from that fact. It's not even strictly true. If I travel to China or Russia for a trip there is absolutely nothing stopping them from arresting me. It's only true if you never travel to that foreign country. In the case of Russia they can do worse than imprison you. Just ask any number of Russia defectors who were killed on on Western soil. This is a very poorly…

I don’t think they were talking about traveling to Russia or China, they’re talking about living in the US. The vast majority of people will not travel to China or Russsia.

For instance if you discuss doing something illegal like getting an abortion in the US, only the US government really cares about that. Whether China knows is irrelevant.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117092169/nebraska-cops-used...

Re: House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app

#610

Post by maxwell »

dpkirchner wrote: post #598
hparadiz wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole reason this is even happening is because they've been caught pushing political content that is blatantly either pro-China or meant to stir shit up in the American population. The irony with your comment is that TikTok's masters in China already have the same power that SOPA was supposed to grant the US government. In other words the USA is trying to strip the CCP of that power. They could've played ball and…

No, the whole reason this is happening is it distracts us from more serious issues such as Chinese labor practices. If politicians can "take China seriously" by banning TikTok they don't need to talk about barring import of products made using forced labor, say.

Didn't they already do that with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in 2021? Or are you referring to other regions of CCP-occupied China?
Post reply on HN