Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoolGuySteve | Hacker News Reader

So what if China blocks apps. Our freedoms are what make us different from them and the first amendment is the most important of those freedoms.

If US persons are truly helping TikTok engage in espionage then arrest them, it’s already illegal.

View on HN

> Our freedoms are what make us different from them

Don't the US gov already have the power to arbitrarily sanction and restrict trade with foreign countries? e.g. You cannot sell to nor buy from people in North Korea. Banning all social media platforms from China seem like a vary minor extension of that power.

Many people already think that power is mis-used and/or abused and would want to see it pared back rather than extended, myself included.

There's an argument that foreign policy should override domestic politics when dealing with adversarial powers we elect our officials to stand up against. It's not a popular view, because few Americans pay attention to or care about foreign affairs. Under the condition where a foreign power has broadly infiltrated our social systems with a Trojan horse, I think there are rational ways to preserve the First Amendment while targeting the offending social/information virus. This law isn't that, but it probably won't pass and large parts of it would definitely would be struck down by the courts if it did.

Whatever "many people already think," though, it's the responsibility of our government to defend the country from adversaries. That should be done in a way thay doesn't undermine the rights of Americans... but it has to be done or those rights would cease to exist.

TikTok harvesting data and manipulating opinion from a foreign throne is incompatible with having a populace free and unencumbered to make wise and rational decisions to self-govern. Without which all other speech disappears.

Controlling information, speech, access to knowledge is much different than banning the import of North Korean beanie baby knock offs.

That's a weird line to draw though. That stance is basically saying physical products are OK to sanction, but digital products aren't. (Genshin Impact is a lot closer to Beanie Babies than most people would care to admit)

And it's doubly-ironic because TikTok isn't getting banned because of Chinese messaging (that's already allowed everywhere, in all mediums). TikTok is under ban-threat in the US because Americans are using it for American messaging.

It's not meaningfully different than say, Turkey banning Twitter back in 2014 and such.

Except controlling communications, thought, and expression is different. The medium isn’t important. It’s what is being controlled.

I agree, it’s not different than an oppressive regime controlling means of communication. It’s in fact precisely the same.

The medium is important if it is artificially inserting itself to push narratives directed for malicious intent. They aren't banning phone calls from China, or preventing Chinese citizens from posting on American websites. They are banning a specific filter.

What filter is that?

What they are doing is establishing the platform for a great firewall of America. What’s the difference between this and oppressive regimes blocking western sites? Who decides what’s next? You’re honestly comfortable with filtering the internet?

I think TikTok users would disagree it’s equivalent to making a phone call, or other sites. It has a specific form that fosters their desired mode of communication. I’ve not seen a specific criminal charge leveled against TikTok, so I assume they’re not doing anything illegal. So, I don’t see how this isn’t suppressing the communications of TikTok users based only on the nationality of their parent company. If they did something illegal, then use the justice system to get redress. Use existing regulatory bodies. Etc. I don’t see the need for a broad based framework for censorship. Even if you won’t agree that this isn’t that this time, it’s most certainly the foundation for it next time. Once you give up freedom of expression on the internet for any reason, you give it up for all reasons.

This isn’t just about speech. It’s about access to markets, stealing technology/IP as a matter of public policy, and Chinese companies functioning as de facto branches of the CCP.

If US social media companies are banned there, their companies should be banned here, etc.

Freedom is merited to those who play "by the rules"

There's a line between extending freedom to parties that don't play fair and being a chump

If you GFW off TikTok from the USA — never mind ByteDance's rights: you're violating Americans' rights to view and interact with speech hosted on TikTok. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."

So you don't, you simply ban every single corporation in the United States from doing business with them, and if you want to keep viewing it, you can.

I get what you're saying, but it's ironic that the social media companies argue against free speech on their "private" platforms when they ban or moderate users.

A business doesn't have the obligation of a government.

Viewing tic toc is not an expression of free speech and I don’t get why you’re implying it is.

To the article's point, I think the discussion centers around a good definition of "the rules." The case the article makes is that the law uses a deliberately vague definition to wield against any "foreign adversary" (China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.)

I'm not personally against some sort of action in this regard, but would prefer stricter definitions to be applied to avoid abuse of power.

Exactly. For example, imagine if Texas decided it would no longer allow people who have out of state driver’s licenses to drive in the state. All the other states will quickly ban Texas drivers from driving in their states as well. And we are the same country.

In fact, I’d say a ban is at least a decade overdue and our Congress is to blame as usual.

Edit: I mean a ban on social media networks controlled by China PR, not a ban on Texas drivers!

And not just long overdue for the internet. It’s long overdue in trade.

Ban trade?

Why ban trade between consenting adults?

Unidirectional free trade isn't free trade.

What do you mean by unidirectional trade? Someone giving you stuff for free and getting nothing in return?

I'd take that offer any day!

Drivers on I-10 in Louisiana would like to ban Texas drivers.

bzzzt look at concealed carry reciprocity, there is no precedent in the US for laws in one state to impact another, and in fact this is a cornerstone of Federalism

I am sorry, but this is written into the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec...

It is not even an amendment. It was there from the start.

Tons of laws from the different states affect each other.

...only when Federal law overrides State law (this should be obvious)

so in my example, there is no Federal carry reciprocity law, so states can clobber each other at will

likewise, there is no Federal Drivers License, so you get some states that share license info with each other, some that don't...and they aren't compelled

Congress gets to decide what reciprocity states must have. Driver's Licenses are one of those. Every US state must accept every other US state's licenses.

Congress did not decide that concealed carry had reciprocity.

The entire "legalizing gay marriage" argument was if states had to be forced to accept same-sex marriages from other states where it was legal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com