Hacker News Reader

Comment by croutonwhiskers | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't microsoft trying to acquire tiktok? Why not just let that happen rather than try to do something so extreme?

I'm not partial to tiktok at all but this is way to much of a big government move than I feel comfortable with.

Isn't this a violation of our first amendment rights?

Honestly, Microsoft could purchase TikTok in its entirety and I still wouldn’t believe that it’s anything more than a front for the Chinese government. MS has a reputation for being exceedingly cozy with governments.

No matter how they try to spin off or rebrand this product or abandon ties to the old parent company, I’d never trust it as much as something entirely new.

If the NSA tried putting out a social media network, nobody would trust it. If they sold it off completely and had zero official NSA employees, nobody would trust it. And rightfully so. TikTok feels the same to me.

I didn't know how to voice my feelings and thoughts on this, but your post sums it all up perfectly. Thank you.

> If the NSA tried putting out a social media network, nobody would trust it.

How ironic to see this statement on HN, when almost every American trusts Google or Facebook despite them being PRISM partners and subject to the control of the NSA.

Not really ironic here, since the top voted comment on every thread about Google or Facebook is about exactly that problem.

To lower the asking price further, I think. If you can lower it by a few billions by threatening to use an executive order, someone is going to use that power.

Or maybe they just want to ban TikTok and the above conspiracy theory is BS.

> Isn't this a violation of our first amendment rights?

Arguably it would be a violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause.

because they wouldn't sell it under normal conditions. now they have to and cheaper

First amendment rights don’t apply to foreign companies.

I see this as the same thing as banning Huawei.

The first amendment is a negative right: it forbids the government from acting. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." The Supreme Court has historically ruled on a regular basis that most US Constitutional protections extend to non citizens too. Unfortunately the conservatively biased Supreme Court last month decided that interfering with freedom of speech is OK against a foreign company. A loss for freedom and a victory for authoritarianism.

Furthermore, historically our country merely postures about rights. They go out the window when politicians start using words like “national security.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com