4 ms·

Tiktok is not a US-based software company, they're a private company from China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytedance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytedance

by ve55 6y ago

Tiktok is not a US-based software company, they're a private company from China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytedance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytedance There's been precedent set recently with e.g. Huawei: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/18216988/white-house-huawei-china-equipment-ban-trump-executive-order https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/18216988/white-house-huaw..., but also keep in mind we have dealt with much stronger things in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

akersten 6y ago
> Tiktok is not a US-based software company, they're a private company from China It doesn't really matter, because the app code is repackaged at the Google/Apple level. At that point, it is from US-company to US-consumer. There are no "import restrictions" or customs on code (speech) like there are on hardware.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  What point are you trying to make here? That the US Government does not have the sovereign authority to determine what companies operate within its borders? Edit: Yeah, instead of downvoting this into oblivion, how about making an argument that the US Government doesn't have the authority to determine what companies operate within its borders.
  - akersten 6y ago
    > What point are you trying to make here? That the US Government does not have the sovereign authority to determine what companies operate within its borders? My point is that the US president does not have the authority to tell a US company (Google/Apple) to "stop distributing this code (speech)," because that is the only way a ban like this could be implemented. Well, there are other ways, but all of them involve legislation by congress and things like Great Firewalls that we don't really want to see happen here. At least, I don't. That is why that any travel down this path I see as an erosion of western democracy, and especially when that travel comes from the executive branch swerving way out of its lane. If congress were convinced to make a Ban TikTok law, I would still object but it would not be because I think they lack authority, it would be on 1st Amendment grounds. And to be clear, I despise the app and am a little sketched out by it. But I don't think either of those are good reasons to corrode our liberties.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I flatly disagree that this is some kind of First Amendment issue. I would love to be proven wrong here, but I'm not aware of any SCOTUS opinion or any related case law that would apply to the argument you are making. That "distributing code" is somehow protected speech. >That is why that any travel down this path I see as an erosion of western democracy, and especially when that travel comes from the executive branch swerving way out of its lane. This is naive. Power is power, and the executive branch did much more restrictive things during WWII. We're in Cold War II now and it is absolutely reasonable to expect moves like this, and while I share your apprehension for the erosion of liberties (I really do), at some point you have to make sure you have a winning hand before you put the cards on the table.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > My point is that the US president does not have the authority to tell a US company (Google/Apple) to "stop distributing this code (speech)," because that is the only way a ban like this could be implemented. Yes they can. Who is going to stop them? If the judges/supreme court says that it is legal, then there is nothing that these companies can do to stop the US justice system telling them to do so, and fining or arresting them if they refuse to comply. > Well, there are other ways, but all of them involve legislation by congress and things like Great Firewalls No. All you have to do is bring it up in US court, and fine/arrest people if they refuse to comply. This is how the law works. If you don't follow it, you get fined. And if you continue to not follow it, then mens with guns, known as the police, come to your house, grab you, and put you in a jail cell. The law is enforced by force. And you really can't just ignore US law like that, if you have any presence at all in the US. Which major companies do. > I would still object but it would not be because I think they lack authority You can "object" all you want. But if the judges of the US disagree with you, then none of that matters. You don't decide what the police do. Thats what the courts are for.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> but also keep in mind we have dealt with much stronger things in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th.... Which was ruled unconstitutional.

by ve55 6y ago

akersten 6y ago

> Tiktok is not a US-based software company, they're a private company from China It doesn't really matter, because the app code is repackaged at the Google/Apple level. At that point, it is from US-company to US-consumer. There are no "import restrictions" or customs on code (speech) like there are on hardware.

remarkEon 6y ago
What point are you trying to make here? That the US Government does not have the sovereign authority to determine what companies operate within its borders? Edit: Yeah, instead of downvoting this into oblivion, how about making an argument that the US Government doesn't have the authority to determine what companies operate within its borders.
- akersten 6y ago
  > What point are you trying to make here? That the US Government does not have the sovereign authority to determine what companies operate within its borders? My point is that the US president does not have the authority to tell a US company (Google/Apple) to "stop distributing this code (speech)," because that is the only way a ban like this could be implemented. Well, there are other ways, but all of them involve legislation by congress and things like Great Firewalls that we don't really want to see happen here. At least, I don't. That is why that any travel down this path I see as an erosion of western democracy, and especially when that travel comes from the executive branch swerving way out of its lane. If congress were convinced to make a Ban TikTok law, I would still object but it would not be because I think they lack authority, it would be on 1st Amendment grounds. And to be clear, I despise the app and am a little sketched out by it. But I don't think either of those are good reasons to corrode our liberties.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I flatly disagree that this is some kind of First Amendment issue. I would love to be proven wrong here, but I'm not aware of any SCOTUS opinion or any related case law that would apply to the argument you are making. That "distributing code" is somehow protected speech. >That is why that any travel down this path I see as an erosion of western democracy, and especially when that travel comes from the executive branch swerving way out of its lane. This is naive. Power is power, and the executive branch did much more restrictive things during WWII. We're in Cold War II now and it is absolutely reasonable to expect moves like this, and while I share your apprehension for the erosion of liberties (I really do), at some point you have to make sure you have a winning hand before you put the cards on the table.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > My point is that the US president does not have the authority to tell a US company (Google/Apple) to "stop distributing this code (speech)," because that is the only way a ban like this could be implemented. Yes they can. Who is going to stop them? If the judges/supreme court says that it is legal, then there is nothing that these companies can do to stop the US justice system telling them to do so, and fining or arresting them if they refuse to comply. > Well, there are other ways, but all of them involve legislation by congress and things like Great Firewalls No. All you have to do is bring it up in US court, and fine/arrest people if they refuse to comply. This is how the law works. If you don't follow it, you get fined. And if you continue to not follow it, then mens with guns, known as the police, come to your house, grab you, and put you in a jail cell. The law is enforced by force. And you really can't just ignore US law like that, if you have any presence at all in the US. Which major companies do. > I would still object but it would not be because I think they lack authority You can "object" all you want. But if the judges of the US disagree with you, then none of that matters. You don't decide what the police do. Thats what the courts are for.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> but also keep in mind we have dealt with much stronger things in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th.... Which was ruled unconstitutional.