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

71–80 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#71

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

ThomPete wrote: post #49
simion314 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would need to explain how TicTok brainwashes americans to vote(or not vote) but Facebook and Twitter categorically does not do the same thing. If "brainwashing" on social media exists then all should be made illegal not only the a small subset.

Thats not really why they are worried about TikTok, it comes back to the issue of the CCP and and that China defacto owns TikTok which means that information can be harvested. This is G5 controversy all over. The brainwashing part is just noise. The real concern is real given Chinas history.

Yeah, but like the CCP don't really care about TikTok/ByteDance.

Or at least they didn't, until this happened.

They would care about Tencent or Alibaba, but ByteDance isn't big or important enough for the party to care.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#72

Post by Draiken »

threeseed wrote: post #50
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…

> banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented No it's not. China has banned most Western apps in the interests of national security. And that article you listed on analysing TikTok is hilariously incompetent. Didn't think to investigate multiplexing data with the video stream ?

I think OP means:

> is largely unprecedented "in the US".

As others stated, if the US wants to start using China as a country to base its precedents on, that's even more concerning in my view.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#73

Post by angryold »

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 the grand scheme of things, apps as we know them are a product of the 2000s, right? Apps are unprecedented as well by that logic, which makes that seem less significant.

I mean we could also say that we might simply disagree with China politically enough to justify such an action (like the US has done against Cuba, Sudan or Iran).

I do agree with you and think though the fact that it's targeting a single company is a bit odd (like other commenters above has also said - why TikTok and not just an industry or sector from a country) and raises some concern from me as well.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#74

Post by swiley »

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 wasn’t going to get involved in this discussion but now I’m tempted.

Has the US done organ harvesting of political prisoners? We’ve done some incredibly messed up stuff from drugging people (including famous composers) to some really really nasty treatment (The details aren’t something I’d like to repeat) of children captured in other countries as part of war but I don’t think we’ve done that.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#75

Post by nemo44x »

ackbar03 wrote: post #47
Traster wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US political system is structured in such a way that it's very difficult to draft legislation and get it passed. You have to get a bill to pass a majority in the house, then (generally) get 60% in the senate, then get past the president's veto, and then implementation of that legislation will fall to a governmental organisation ultimately run by a political appointee who is appointed by the President and confirme…

I didn't know the details of this before lol. That sounds like a nightmare it's a wonder anything gets done...

It’s a feature really. It can be frustrating but the idea is that big changes can be made but not on a whim. There generally has to be compromise.

I wouldn’t want to live under a system that can make drastic changes on a whim. The USA is a very multicultural place with many different people with different priorities. We need to find common ground before certain types of things change. This is good even if frustrating at times.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#76

Post by brendawalsh »

Traster wrote: post #41
bootloop wrote: post #7

Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

The US political system is structured in such a way that it's very difficult to draft legislation and get it passed. You have to get a bill to pass a majority in the house, then (generally) get 60% in the senate, then get past the president's veto, and then implementation of that legislation will fall to a governmental organisation ultimately run by a political appointee who is appointed by the President and confirme…

Senators used to not be elected by the general voters. Instead they were elected by state legislators.

The 17th amendment changed this.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#77

Post by francesca »

darawk wrote: post #66
liuyong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not comparable. Quote form fortune[1]: Kai-Fu Lee, a leading artificial intelligence expert who heads the tech investment firm Sinovation Ventures, worked for Google in China between 2005 and 2009. (Until 2009, Google operated a separate, censored version of its search engine in China.) He said in a Chinese-language statement on Tuesday that Google's experience in China and TikTok's case in the U.S. are "not…

China bans plenty of US apps and services. Facebook, for instance. They are exactly comparable.

If you comply with China's laws you can operate there. These US companies just don't want to deal with that.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#78

Post by baybal2 »

bootloop wrote: post #7

Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

> Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think.

The matter is whether "is is ok to do business with a company from a communist country for as long as you are not dealing with the state itself" vs. "it is ok to do business with a communist country in general, just not with their dangerous businesses"

Given the context of the issue, one whats to ask why now the later is fine, and the prior is not?

It also does sound, and look completely schizophrenic when the same part of political establishment vouches for both at the same time.

It feels the establishment is still very, very eager to keep doing business with China, just as much as they are eager to keep insane profits that come from the trade with China, and they will immediately run back to Beijing to bargain for concessions right after the elections.

Remember, the establishment has collectively sank legislations barring companies from dealing with labour rights abusing contractors abroad.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#79

Post by dalbasal »

bootloop wrote: post #7

Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

EU citizen also...

Why is our politics/legislation in this space derivative of the US? Isn't the point of the EU to get a large enough regulatory block to be effective at (among other things) regulating multinationals?

So far all I've seen is minor bureaucratic layers (eg gdpr) and rulings (eg the adwords antitrust case) that change nothing meaningful. I don't even know who to complain to.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#80

Post by LatteLazy »

bootloop wrote: post #7

Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

Cynical answer: This is about creating chaos and allowing some buyer to get a really good deal. The hoped outcome is that that buyer will support trumps re-election and the headlines about china will rally support but that the damage won't be enough to cause China to act back.

Less cynical answer: wider action would require congress to be involved and congress is permanently gridlocked

Post reply on HN