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

81–90 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#81

Post by threeseed »

Draiken wrote: post #72
threeseed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Countries blocking companies from operating on national security grounds is hardly new in the US or anywhere really.

It might be the first US mobile app however I will grant you that.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#82

Post by swiley »

Im no fan of banning an app just because it’s from another country but

> As a company we have always focused on transparency

Isn’t something you can say when the only way to see something is from an “algorithm” curated feed. Facebook says the same thing and it’s always really upsetting.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#83

Post by nemo44x »

swiley wrote: post #64
ackbar03 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s the idea. The states are supposed to be doing the majority of the legislation.

It’s probably too late but a good argument for drastically lowering federal taxes is that then states would be forced to raise local taxes as the federal government wouldn’t subsidize as much.

I feel like in today’s climate that both sides would find common ground in this as you often here republicans wanting less federal authority and democrats complaining their states pay most of the taxes that get redistributed to generally republican states.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#84

Post by johnhenry »

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.

In this case, it's probably more about the president acting like a "Big Man" and being "tough on China" than actual concern for it's citizens.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#85

Post by Retric »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #70
Udik wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so long the companies' own countries is also on the US side as well The US side of what? What does it mean to be on the US side?

The USA has enemies, NATO has enemies. The short list is China, Iran, Russia, N Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. There are others, but these seem to get the most attention. Remember the Axis of Evil?

As 1984 put it ‘oceania has always been at war with eurasia’ edit: eastasia.

Country’s have complex relationships. At the height of the Cold War the US and USSR still had some trade. It’s really propaganda that boils things down to allies and enemies.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#86

Post by m11a »

chrisco255 wrote: post #8

It's really hard to feel bad for a Chinese entity when tens of thousands of small businesses across the country have had their business effectively bankrupted on account of arbitrary government action that is no fault of their own.

Keep in mind that it's not just about a Chinese entity. They employ a lot of people directly, and all those 'influencers' on TikTok also make their livelihoods from their TikTok work. Not all could easily migrate to other platforms.

This is akin to banning YouTube. You're not just banning the company. There's a whole community, of content consumers and creators with jobs, behind it.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#87

Post by threeseed »

badRNG wrote: post #48
StreamBright wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. In the USA. China has done is many times.

Yes, and the concerns about 1st Amendment precedence weren't referring to China either. I imagine China disallows end-to-end encrypted messaging apps as well, which is largely the basis of my concern.

Not sure why you are bringing up the 1st Amendment.

Operating a social network app is not a protected form of free speech.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#88

Post by drtillberg »

The silliness in the statement about being "obligated" to the TikTok community.... It's contradictory, just like all ToS would be. Compare:

Public Relations Statement: "Put simply, we have a thriving community and we are grateful – and responsible – to them."

With: Terms of Service[1] ( hilariously, TikTok provides a read time estimate on the ToS of "279 - 354 minutes"):

  We reserve the right to disable your user account at any time ... in our sole discretion ....

  We reserve the right, at any time and without prior notice, to remove or disable access to content at our discretion for ... no reason.

  You further acknowledge that ... you (i) have no right to receive any income or other consideration from any User Content ... including in any User Content created by you, and (ii) are prohibited from exercising any rights to monetize or obtain consideration from any User Content within the Services or on any third party service ( e.g. , you cannot claim User Content that has been uploaded to a social media platform such as YouTube for monetization).

  By posting User Content ... you waive ... any and all rights of privacy, publicity, or any other rights of a similar nature in connection with your User Content.... [Y]ou hereby waive and agree never to assert any and all moral rights ... with respect to any User Content you Post to or through the Services.
I'm sure there's more, but the point is, as far as legal obligation goes, users are the junior partner for sure, and it's pretty silly to claim TikTok is "responsible" to the community for much of anything, as a result of the ToS and other behind the scenes manuvering.

[1] https://www.tiktok.com/legal/terms-of-use?lang=en

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#89

Post by ahiknsr »

liuyong wrote: post #52
fvv wrote: post #24

Chinese administration ban or ostracize large portion of us software , imo us and eu must do the same 'til minimum information freedom for free people ( no China firewall,information circulation ban ) is allowed there too

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…

you forgot to mention that china has hacked google. "In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google" [1]

[1] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#90

Post by totalZero »

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 government benefits from corporate invasion of individual privacy because it can and does coerce corporations to share their information with the government.

The issue at hand is not invasion of privacy, but rather the state's monopoly thereof versus its foreign adversaries.

Post reply on HN