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

Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#81

Post by paxys »

otterley wrote: post #58
paxys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pointless misdirection. "I'll burn down your house unless you sell it to me for $1" See, that's not arson, because you always had a way out.

This is a terrible analogy: 1/Selling something doesn't destroy it 2/You don't want to destroy it because you want to fetch a high price for it 3/Nobody's offering $1 for TikTok, and nobody expects ByteDance to accept $1 for it 4/A fair market price would make ByteDance whole

Change it to $100 or $1M or $1B, it doesn't matter. If you don't want to sell your house you have the right to not sell it.

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#84

Post by DonHopkins »

thehappypm wrote: post #48
xutopia wrote: post #25

We all know it's just a way for Musk and others to get a really popular social media for cheap. This ban has nothing to do with anything else than that.

Which is why the law was signed by .. checks notes.. Joe Biden?

Because he's both an evil genius and a senile old man at the same time, just like Reagan.

President Reagan, Mastermind - SNL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#85

Post by henryfjordan »

_bin_ wrote: post #55
ccvannorman wrote: post #31

If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. Wha…

I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to…

[flagged]

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#86

Post by teqsun »

belorn wrote: post #68

Banning citizens from using the app seems unconstitutional, but is preventing the the company ByteDance to operate inside the US unconstitutional? Those two seems like two completely different questions even if the outcome is similar. From a EU perspective, regulating what companies do is not in conflict at all with human rights. The privilege to operate a company, provide advertisement, sell products and services, t…

Really? From my reading of it, it seems to focus how such a ban would inhibit the speech of US citizens who use the application, not TikTok as an entity.

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#87

Post by jimnotgym »

ccvannorman wrote: post #31

If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. Wha…

I do have children in that age range and see US social media damaging them. Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#88

Post by otterley »

paxys wrote: post #81
otterley wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible analogy: 1/Selling something doesn't destroy it 2/You don't want to destroy it because you want to fetch a high price for it 3/Nobody's offering $1 for TikTok, and nobody expects ByteDance to accept $1 for it 4/A fair market price would make ByteDance whole

Change it to $100 or $1M or $1B, it doesn't matter. If you don't want to sell your house you have the right to not sell it.

Eminent domain is a thing. You can absolutely be forced to sell your house to make way for a public project. Hell, after the Kelo decision, you can even be forced to sell it for private benefit.

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#89

Post by otterley »

Hizonner wrote: post #73
otterley wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible analogy: 1/Selling something doesn't destroy it 2/You don't want to destroy it because you want to fetch a high price for it 3/Nobody's offering $1 for TikTok, and nobody expects ByteDance to accept $1 for it 4/A fair market price would make ByteDance whole

You think forced rushed sales don't depress market prices?

ByteDance has been aware that this was likely to happen for years, and legislation was signed in April 2024, giving them over six months to sell. There's nothing rushed about this at all. ByteDance is playing chicken, and they're looking ever likelier to lose this game.

Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In

#90

Post by klabb3 »

belorn wrote: post #68

Banning citizens from using the app seems unconstitutional, but is preventing the the company ByteDance to operate inside the US unconstitutional? Those two seems like two completely different questions even if the outcome is similar. From a EU perspective, regulating what companies do is not in conflict at all with human rights. The privilege to operate a company, provide advertisement, sell products and services, t…

This is the best point I’ve read about this. I don’t think TikTok should be seen as a facilitator of free speech, because it has no obligations to allow it. It’s a private enterprise with their own community guidelines censorship, but most importantly they control the ”algorithm”. No matter how much these platforms claim to be town squares, they are absolutely not and thus serve no essential speech function. If they did, content would not require installing spyware to see. (In my opinion secret mandatory engagement algorithms don’t deserve even section 230 protections).

On the other hand, it doesn’t sit right with me that ”China scary” is enough to outright block whoever is successful in the surveillance capitalist game invented in the US. It screams of political hit job for hire by the tech oligarchs. It’s like banning Taco Bell for health reasons and leaving McDonalds alone. If the modern US was not a plutocracy, this would have been an opportunity for legislators to do real harm reduction and steer predatory mega-corps in a better direction.

Post reply on HN