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

81–90 of 110 posts

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

#81

Post by dylan604 »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #61
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.

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

I don't like the content, but I would NOT support banning it.

To me, there are things that a fun to play what if with for entertainment purposes and hanging out while puff-puff-passing, but only if there's a strong link to reality with the individual reading it. For those without that link and they conspiracy seems tangible that they accept that as their reality it is no longer entertainment.

With the dumbing down of critical thinking in education, things that get pushed on the interwebs become much more accepted as normal instead of being able to say maybe someone is pushing an agenda instead. The ability of someone being a shill and not know it is just a sad state of affairs.

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

#82

Post by dylan604 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #56
dylan604 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. I'm not a TikTok user, but over the long weekend was around people that clearly are. The things they discussed we so outlandish that I was confused on where they got their information. Of course it was a lot of TikTok and YouTube being used as sources. Personally, I'm much less concerned by any potential surveillance tool. However, the especial…

would be better if you provided maybe a single example of the outlandish things discussed did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? i remember that polling suggests that a third of people believe they have literally spoken with the dead

Just this weekend, I was told that we were in WWIII, but in secret. Of course there's all of the big lie nonsense. There's still talk of which ever Kennedy coming back. Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread?

> did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century?

Why is that even a question? Of course the crazy was around. It was just much more difficult to spread it around. You had 'zines that were available. You had AM and shortwave radio programs. Just by telling someone you listened to AM/shortwave content already set people in the correct frame of mind of where the information was obtained. In modern times, it's everywhere on the socials. It just so happens the time the socials were gaining usage with people that specifically do not know critical thinking nor have been taught the ways to investigate sources.

The internet as been an equalizer for everyone doing anything. As much as it has done for retail, it has also been huge for not just the conspiracy theory sites but propaganda from anyone including foreign actors.

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

#83

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73
somenameforme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#84

Post by wumeow »

somenameforme wrote: post #78
throwitaway222 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Is…

> Look up information about the Gaza War on YouTube and you'll be inundated with various sources promoting a uniformly pro-Israel narrative

I encourage everyone to try this out in a private tab to see how untrue this is.

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

#85

Post by somenameforme »

wumeow wrote: post #84
somenameforme wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Is…

> Look up information about the Gaza War on YouTube and you'll be inundated with various sources promoting a uniformly pro-Israel narrative I encourage everyone to try this out in a private tab to see how untrue this is.

Here is the search I'm using: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gaza+war

Most links are covering the recent Israel strike on the refugee camp in Rafah, where dozens of civilians were killed in a single strike. That happened after the UN's International Court of Justice specifically ordered Israel to halt their offensive in Rafah. I think hyperbolic responses to this would not only be expected, but perfectly appropriate. Instead I'm just getting a bunch of links to stuff that is repeating Israeli PR verbatim - it was a "tragic mistake", multiple senior Hamas killed, and so on. Are you getting something different? Opening up the link in multiple Tor windows I keep getting mostly the same sites: livenow fox, channel 4 news, TBN Israel, StudyIQ IAS, etc.

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

#86

Post by mrkramer »

I know that US has liberal constitution and liberal market economy but putting aside national security risks; why would US let ByteDance reap billions of dollars in profit from US market when Google and Facebook are not allowed to participate in Chinese market and reap profits as well? You could argue that Facebook and Google could abide by Chinese censorship laws and then what? Strip down like 50% from overall content because it is not in line with CCP's ideology?!

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

#87

Post by rurp »

falcolas wrote: post #67
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Destroying the company rather than selling it for billions of dollars is a crazy stance for a supposedly independent business, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There is a good chance they are bluffing, which would be a reasonable strategy as they try to push back on the bill.

The only reason they would go through with burning the company down is for geopolitical reasons, which would show how beholden Tiktok is to the CCP and confirm one of the arguments for passing the bill in the first place.

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

#88

Post by maxglute »

mrkramer wrote: post #86

I know that US has liberal constitution and liberal market economy but putting aside national security risks; why would US let ByteDance reap billions of dollars in profit from US market when Google and Facebook are not allowed to participate in Chinese market and reap profits as well? You could argue that Facebook and Google could abide by Chinese censorship laws and then what? Strip down like 50% from overall conte…

Meta still gets billions (10% of global) from PRC based advertisers. IIRC sure Google in billions as well. And have been this entire time.

>strip down like 50% from overall content because it is not in line with CCP's ideology?

Of course, play by same rules/guidelines as domestic players. Will also have advantage in offering filtered content from abroad vs domestic players, also will gain a shitload of unique content from PRC net. Many of interesting content producers in PRC if Google leverages AI to transcribe, translate, dub. Plus handover dissident information, but thats table stakes. And eventually get pressured to block antiPRC rags like FLG media globally or be put on sanction/unreliable entity list.

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

#89

Post by jncfhnb »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #51
jncfhnb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment says nothing about ownership of the press.

And the fourth says nothing about computers and hard drives. And yet, they are safe from search without a warrant.

… right because the fourth amendment says “search and seizure”. And as you say, that’s a search.

I am not contesting that the first amendment fails to name TikTok. I’m contesting that the first amendment does not protect your right to own media distribution channels.

We have laws that limit ownership of distribution channels already.

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

#90

Post by whimsicalism »

dylan604 wrote: post #82
whimsicalism wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would be better if you provided maybe a single example of the outlandish things discussed did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? i remember that polling suggests that a third of people believe they have literally spoken with the dead

Just this weekend, I was told that we were in WWIII, but in secret. Of course there's all of the big lie nonsense. There's still talk of which ever Kennedy coming back. Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread? > did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? Why is that even a question? Of course the crazy was…

> Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread?

I'm not, I was actually curious what your examples were.

> It just so happens the time the socials were gaining usage with people that specifically do not know critical thinking nor have been taught the ways to investigate sources.

I would be curious about the rate of misunderstanding and how it has changed. My feeling is that kids today are generally smarter and better informed than kids of the past. I'm pretty skeptical of the notion that more people are misinformed today than in the past.

Post reply on HN