Hacker News Reader

Comment by tayo42 | Hacker News Reader

> While the Chinese government engaging in propaganda is a problem, "we need to address that as a government propaganda problem, and not just limited to China,"

Don't disagree with that.

But I don't get why TikTok the company gets speech. The company it self isn't saying anything. Its just providing a way for people to share their message. Individual them selves aren't being told they cant share. They can still make videos.

View on HN

AFAIU from the article, the 1st amendment argument is not about the company, it's about the users. Quoting from the article:

> Molloy's ruling said that without TikTok, "User Plaintiffs are deprived of communicating by their preferred means of speech, and thus First Amendment scrutiny is appropriate."

I don't really understand why banning one short form video platform infringes on speech.

Wouldn't that mean banning any web 2.0 platform infringes on my speech if I use that platform? Regardless of why the platform might be banned? There's no way that holds water

Tiktok is a platform used by millions of people, and it acts like a news site for many people. Banning it due to unproved national security problem kinda make it speech problem. If web 2.0 like facebook was banned for national security issue I think it would be first amendment problem. We haven't banned rt.com yet.

"unproved national security problem" and yet Congress was fairly well galvanized to vote for this bill after their intelligence briefings - multiple senators seem to want the briefing declassified: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-se...

Say what you want about the US government, Americans vote for them and their job is to synthesize the information brought to them and take action. The Senate obviously wasn't as overwhelmingly enthusiastic about this bill as the house, but it sure seems like people on capital hill saw something concerning.

We should all probably want this information to be declassified so we can judge it for ourselves, but until then it feels unjustified to say there is no basis for the national security concern

IMO, it matters why they're banning it. The reasons are a worry about "national security" as related to Chinese propaganda and manipulating opinions. Those two things are speech, which makes it a valid avenue of challenge.

Why something is done matters to US law just as what was done matters.

And personally, since the spread of propaganda and manipulation is happening on Facebook, only targeting just the new kid on the block is terribly suspect. Especially when there's no plans to address the existing platforms and their use by foreign entities.

The complication for me is that banning TikTok is action against a third party. The primary purpose of banning TikTok is not about the speech of TikTok but of its users who are not parties to the suit. If a bar is forced to shut down the bar can’t argue that it is illegal because closing it might infringe on its patrons first amendment rights.

The only way such a suit works is if the users sued, not TikTok.

if the bar also had open-mic nights and the government said "we're going to ban this bar because we don't like the speech they have at open-mic nights" then it would be a first amendment issue for the same reason that banning tiktok is a first amendment issue.

Yeah I saw that quote. I don't get why preference matters? If my preferred medium was spray painting walls, I still don't get to do that because it's destructive.

Im also curious how many people are already sharing their content to everyone else who is hosts videos.

TikTok isn't the only video host. Probably not even the best. The only thing to prefer is their discovery algorithm, and I don't think tiktoks algorithm is speech. I don't think anyone is entitled to a platform.

Do users have a right to express themselves on a private platform? Private platforms aren’t a public forum.

Instead if the company was bought by big tech then shutdown some time later, is this also a free speech violation, as users are deprived of communicating by their preferred means?

The First Amendment is a limit on what the government can do.

So a private company can shut down or ban users as it wishes. In this case, the key fact is that Congress passed a law.

However, they didn't pass a law shutting it down, they passed a law about location of ownership. Therefore it is still the company making the choice to shutdown vs selling, moving, or taking another action to comply.

Corporate personhood for me but not for thee?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com