Hacker News Reader

Comment by itsbits | Hacker News Reader

Weird how US laws are made. App was banned in some non-cyber laws countries like India, still Tiktok unable to challenge them. But US here is getting rebuted.

View on HN

For all of the weaknesses of the United States, one thing we do have going for us is the strength of the rule of law here, especially where it constrains the powers of the government. India's scores on this issue, especially due process, are much lower. (In particular, check the section discussing regulatory enforcement.)

https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...

I see the government being bound and limited as a foundation of our government and, usually, a good thing.

That's because it's not a law, it's a one-sided interference of the executive. If the US Congress made a law properly, TikTok would not be able to challenge it.

> If the US Congress made a law properly, TikTok would not be able to challenge it

Of course it would. The Supreme Court can "invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with" the Constitution [1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...

Banning a certain foreign company from doing business in the US is not incompatible with constitution as long as it is done following the correct process. It has been done hundreds of times and stood correctly.

It could be "challenged" but it would be dismissed rapidly, because of ample precedent, and the Supreme Court would almost assuredly refuse to take the case.

Right, but these are somewhat uncharted waters. It would be easy for congress to ban Honda doing business with the US but it's less clear if they could ban the American Honda Motor Company.

Indeed. If the AHMC was wholly American owned, there is nothing that could really be done. But forcing ByteDance to divest is already achieving the goal.

As for preventing the American subsidiary to be owned by the current owners, Congress has the power to personally sanction foreign individuals.

Alternatively, Congress would have the power to nationalize (in exchange for a fair market price) the American subsidiary of TikTok and then sell it, legally.

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is still a right. Not sure whether it would be a sufficient defense but they would have a case.

That is true, however this is not technically seizure but instead the prevention of business with American companies. ByteDance would maintain full ownership of all their assets.

Jurisprudence is that Congress can indeed do this, as it has been done and defended many times. As for the executive, that's much dicier.

This gives people a chance even if it is the government who is going after them, to turn the tide around.

I would say this is not weird by any means, it is by intentions, and is indeed how most things go about in US. I will be more surprise to see Trump's EO go without challenges.

You can sue about anything. The more interesting question is whether they have a case.

How popular was TikTok in India? How much money could TikTok stand to make by being popular in India?

TikTok was incredibly popular in India. If I recall correctly it was their largest market outside of China.

Edit: According to the company themselves, it was their largest overseas market with a userbase of 200 million.

Yeah per user revenue is optimistically like < 1% of US/Europe probably

I won't be so sure about that. There are some Indian states having a higher PPP than some European countries. 1:100 ratio seems to be too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_unio...

Simple Google search returns this: "TikTok May Lose Up To $6 Billion As Result Of India Ban"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/04/tiktok-lo...

Maintain your ignorant beliefs, it'll take you very far

How is this weird? A country of law and order and checks and balances rightly allows orders like this to be contested.

India, used as the example, has a very flawed democracy and a high degree of corruption.

EDIT: LOL, downvoted to oblivion by the HN India contingent. As provided elsewhere, India's democratic and corruption rankings are mediocre.

> India, used as the example, has a very flawed democracy

How come?

https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi

India is no benchmark. There are far worse countries, but if someone cites India's actions as an example, it falls flat.

I was asking why India has a flawed democracy.

I went through the list. India is ranked around 50.

If you ignore all the cute european countries like Finland, Denmark, Liechtenstein etc from the top, which doesn't even qualify as a big city in India, I would say India is doing pretty good for a country where 1/6 population of the world live.

> I would say India is doing pretty good for a country where 1/6 population of the world live.

Sure, India is by far the most democratic country of its own size or larger.

But that literally just means “not as bad as China”. It's kind of like if the Republic of Korea (which could support stronger claims, to be sure) was said to be “pretty good for a country located on the Korean peninsula”—it is true, but doesn't say a lot.

Sure. A democracy index where you have countries ranging from less than a million population to greater than 1 billion population also doesn't say a lot :)

I think it says quite a lot.

It's possible that one of the things it says is that democracy (at least the values measured by the index) is not scale independent, and more specifically democratic values are inherently incompatible with large states. I don't think the second part is actually true, at least with current technology and at the scales involved, but that seems to be the “defense” of India here.

Elections != Democracy

https://archive.vn/hmUx2

What about Japan and Australia which are currently working to ban it.

What about them?

I replied to someone saying "ha ha isn't that weird they can contest it in the US look countries like India just went ahead and banned it and there's no recourse". Great. Other countries can talk about it, go through a legislative process (in Japan lawmakers aren't even going to start talking about their possible options until September), then there are legal challenges and normal processes to go through, etc.

India's democracy is far superior to that of the US (which is TBH, like any two-party system, a bit of a joke - see Bush v Al Gore, dem race Sanders v Clinton), and as for corruption, the US leads the entire world on that score.

The difference is where the corruption happens (lobbying for billion dollar contracts, rather than a private citizen slipping a civil servant a few notes to speed along some approval or another). The former type of corruption doesn't get taken into account in any world corruption index, so Americans think they're not corrupt.

The US is nowhere near leadership in either democracy or corruption. I didn't hold it as the stellar example, beyond countering someone who is surprised (or finds it "weird") that a government has checks and balances, and a legal system. I know few Americans who "think they're not corrupt", nor does that change the fact that India is very corrupt and has a very flawed democracy.

The US in not a leader in corruption, but it is an interesting study in creative ways to be corrupt.

Because being allowed to legally bribe politicians (lobbying), influence them which basically means that politicians have interest of corporations at heart and not that of general population is democracy. Being able to rig primaries so that a candidate that people wanted to vote for as a president can't run for the elections is democracy. Gotcha.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com