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

US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

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

#71

Post by JumpCrisscross »

somenameforme wrote: post #68
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 maritim…

> strongly suggestive of the creation of a national firewall

Not really. It means TikTok can’t be distributed through app stores and that Oracle can fuck right off [1]. (“By means of a marketplace” and “hosting,” not accessing.)

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/19/23174775/tiktok-oracle-te...

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

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

falcolas wrote: post #62
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up

The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera. The closest thing that could happen is the domain is seized and it winds up behind TikTok.cn.

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

#73

Post by JumpCrisscross »

somenameforme wrote: post #52
incomingpain wrote: post #20

>consider the legal challenges to a new law requiring China-based ByteDance to divest TikTok's U.S. assets by Jan. 19 or face a ban. This legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan supported and placed under national security, in an election year, whose court case will happen by Dec. 6 in order to seek review from the Supreme Court if needed before Jan 19th ban. But the election is 1 month prior. That this most likely…

It was bipartisan from the political establishment, not actual people. [1] That poll is the most recent available (this month). Democrats - 42% in favor of a ban, republicans - 65% in favor. Both those numbers are also on the decline. The poll also did not break it down by age where this question is also extremely polarized. Younger people tend to be highly opposed to a ban, and older people tend to be more in suppor…

50% for, 32% opposed among all American adults—18 net is real popular support.

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

#74

Post by incomingpain »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35
incomingpain wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which means the public can make it an issue if it wants to. That's what I'm saying, it's highly probable that it will be.

> it's highly probable that it will be I’m sceptical, but not confidently so. The demo that would have been relevant has significant overlap with voters who will never vote for Trump or Biden. Unless they can mobilise convincingly down ballot, they’re for practical purposes out of the race.

That's an interesting idea. Trump/Biden doesn't matter but could tiktok form/boost a third party that beats the democrats and republicans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The independent vote is huge.

Could this be Robert F Kennedy's time to shine?

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

#75

Post by jcranmer »

GordonS wrote: post #70
jcranmer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

All of the media I've been following have been consistently skeptical of Israel's actions since at least November. In particular, I've noticed that the IDF's press events at the big hospital they cleared out (multiple times!) have consistently fallen flat, with all the journalists expressing extreme skepticism of the military's claims in their articles about it.

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

#76

Post by RandomLensman »

bydo wrote: post #49
RandomLensman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?

If we regulate the Internet like we do the airwaves, "obscenity, indecency, and profanity" are now illegal.[0] >It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or e…

Isn't that also showing some limits to first amendment protections (which was the point I was trying to make)?

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

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

incomingpain wrote: post #74
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's highly probable that it will be I’m sceptical, but not confidently so. The demo that would have been relevant has significant overlap with voters who will never vote for Trump or Biden. Unless they can mobilise convincingly down ballot, they’re for practical purposes out of the race.

That's an interesting idea. Trump/Biden doesn't matter but could tiktok form/boost a third party that beats the democrats and republicans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx The independent vote is huge. Could this be Robert F Kennedy's time to shine?

> could tiktok form/boost a third party that beats the democrats and republicans

Probably not given the electoral math of the strongholds.

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

#78

Post by somenameforme »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #42
neilv wrote: post #22

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "I…

The other angle is war. Modern war is not necessarily bombing campaigns (even if we have 2 going on now). It's control of other countries citizens, even if through their own words. For example if representational content of people falling in love with Osama Bin Laden is a total of 3 hours of content, and there are a billion hours of guitar playing good ole American BBQ content, TikTok can show the 3 Bid Laden hours t…

Imagine you tune into something and it's just Bin Laden or related stuff. If you don't find it interesting it's not like you're going to just sit there for hours watching it. Most likely you'd just find a different site if they kept shoving it down your throat. And, in fact, even if you somehow had to sit there for hours watching it, it's not like it's ever going to convince you to decide to convert to his sect of Islam and go become a Jihadist. The point I make with this is that people can only really be significantly influenced on things they don't already have preformed opinions on. And even then it tends to be quite brief, because more natural opinions start to coalesce pretty quickly. See - basically every war the US has ever been involved when the other country is some place most people couldn't even find on a map, at first.

IMO the real threat the US perceives isn't TikTok manipulating information, but them not manipulating it. Look up information about the Gaza War on YouTube and you'll be inundated with various sources promoting a uniformly pro-Israel narrative. The relatively low views on these hits (no recommendation had more than 400k views) for such a hot topic, with premium placement in the search results, suggests it's not resonating or organic, to say the least. But that's because, again, I don't think the goal is to actually get people to watch this and suddenly start cheering on Israel or whatever. Rather, I think the idea is to encourage people to think that they hold a minority view, and motivate them to self censor their own views and opinions. And that's pretty hard to do when you have this massive 'uncontrolled' site openly allowing people to express their wrongthink, and it not being artificially downranked.

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

#79

Post by GordonS »

jcranmer wrote: post #75
GordonS wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of the media I've been following have been consistently skeptical of Israel's actions since at least November. In particular, I've noticed that the IDF's press events at the big hospital they cleared out (multiple times!) have consistently fallen flat, with all the journalists expressing extreme skepticism of the military's claims in their articles about it.

I don't know what you've been reading/viewing, but every MSM outlet in the UK has been very obviously pro-Israel (as well as every story I've seen coming out the US, in the likes of the NYT etc) - to the point where it'd be comical, if what they were doing wasn't so deadly.

In their stories they usually have a tiny bit of criticism of Israel's actions, but even then always with caveats - I suspect this is to give the appearance of balance, and possibly to allow pro-Israelis to complain about how the press is against them. (to be clear, I'm not saying anything against yourself, it's a general observation!)

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

#80

Post by shihab »

jcranmer wrote: post #75
GordonS wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of the media I've been following have been consistently skeptical of Israel's actions since at least November. In particular, I've noticed that the IDF's press events at the big hospital they cleared out (multiple times!) have consistently fallen flat, with all the journalists expressing extreme skepticism of the military's claims in their articles about it.

Bias more often hides in the news you don’t see, not the ones you do.

For example, many people have heard about 40 beheaded babies. How many have actually heard of Zaka? An ultra-right first responder volunteer group that made up this and several other stories that were plastered all over western media with zero attempt to verify it. Even Israeli media extensively reported on this group’s activities, but NYTimes and WSJ has been weirdly silent about all this up until very recently.

You all saw Nytimes’ investigation into hamas’ systematic use of rape. How many of you saw the news from NYTimes that both the parents and kibbutz of one of the central victims of the story said there was no sexual assault. And this also is a fabrication of Zaka.

Again, these facts are extensively reported in even Israeli media, several months ago. US media have recently started talking about this, and even now barely scratched the surface.

Post reply on HN