Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

> If the US passed laws requiring TikTok to do the same in the US, they would obviously comply.

Except for the part where that law would end up being declared unconstitutional, and rightly so. Then again, if TikTok has no US ownership, perhaps it would pass constitutional muster. 1A doesn't specifically mention US citizens or US-owned corporations, though, just that that government shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech, so maybe not.

View on HN

Curious - why would it be unconstitutional?

There are plenty of laws forcing companies to engage in certain kinds of behavior. The latest I've seen is the beer manufacturing / distribution / sales breakup as a result of the post-prohibition policies. Manufacturers can't distribute, distributors can't sell to consumers and so-on.

I think people might not tolerate such govt interference, but assuming it's law I don't think it'll be unconstitutional.

The Constitutional bar is pretty high for requiring anyone to engage in forced speech, even if it's purely commercial. Laws requiring broadcasters to transmit a certain amount of public interest or educational programming were generally upheld by the courts because spectrum is a limited public resource, and radio waves reach into everyone's home whether they want it or not. But cable TV and streaming video services have effectively unlimited capacity, so those old rules never applied to them.

Alcohol is a separate issue entirely. The 21st Amendment gives states broad authority to control distribution.

Is a recommendation algorithm "speech"? Applying vague 18th century wording and logic to something it's writers couldn't even dream of is so weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com