7 ms·
The Rank Hypocrisy of a TikTok Ban
- Thetawaves 6y agoWhat about this ban is Hypocrisy? It seems perfectly in line with the freedoms given to American corporations operating in China (IE None.) I'm not convinced the free speech concerns even apply when TikTok meticulously grooms the content offered on the platform. Who's speech is being infringed? The Chinese censors?
- javert 6y agoBanning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform, and also Americans who work there. More generally, violating one right of one American threatens all rights of all Americans. TikTok should be banned if and only if it presents a military or intelligence threat.
- Craighead 6y agoIt does present that threat
- gruez 6y ago>Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform What rights? 1st amendment? Your speech isn't being curtailed, you just have to take it elsewhere. If you interpret this as a trade dispute everything looks fine. Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. >also Americans who work there. what rights are we talking about?
- javert 6y agoI think your conception of rights is far too narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive. > Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want. Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical way of looking at rights. Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
- gruez 6y ago> I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. >Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. >The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for. This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".
- javert 6y agoIt is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gruez 6y ago>Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
- aeternum 6y agoBanning TikTok may be a violation of the principle of free trade, however that is not an American right. Many economists have successfully argued that free trade is overall a net gain, even if other countries do enact free trade themselves. The problem with TikTok and China in general is it's not just about free trade. The Chinese government owns a significant part of each company and uses those companies/apps to gather intelligence. They also often do not enforce IP, which blurs the line between trade and theft.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe US is far from the only country floating a TikTok ban, so it’s difficult to believe this article’s very US centric explanation. If it’s about protecting Facebook, why do Japan and potentially Australia also believe there’s a legitimate threat? (I’m excluding India because they have other plausible reasons to want to mess with China.)
- peacefulhat 6y agoDunno, but US govt is leaning on them in public and probably behind the scenes to encourage a ban. Pompeo called out an unnamed ally for not joining the US ban of Huawei in a recent speech. The protectionism isn’t purely monetary but also about retaining indirect control over communication platforms and infrastructure.
- Thetawaves 6y agoI would wager the motive is less about control, and more about about shared values / identity / mutual understanding.
- thedudeabides5 6y agoSounds like classic Trump. Use the threat of a ban to force a policy change in American interests. Maybe bargain down Microsoft’s price for TikTok along the way. TikTok’s user base deserves a parent company domiciled in the US and under American regulatory and financial purview.
- joezydeco 6y agoEveryone is overthinking this, like they always do with Trump. TikTok’s users embarrassed him in Tulsa. So TikTok must go.
- danielscrubs 6y agoI do hope I deserve better than that. I’d say Canada or Swiss. Now only if they could ban FB and make their own... The slippery slope/trade wars has begun.
- gruez 6y agoIs it really "hypocrisy" if China started it first, by banning American apps? If country A bans imports of widgets from country B, and country B retaliates with a similar ban, is it hypocrisy?
- crazy5sheep 6y agoIf country B does nothing, it would be pure stupidity. The US was already late on taking actions.
- rvz 6y agoCareful. You’re spilling out ‘logic’ and ‘truths’ here that doesn’t fit WIRED’s narrative. Indeed Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat were banned in China long before TikTok even existed so Wired’s point of ‘hypocrisy’ really falls short at this. China has other alternative social networks like LINE, Wechat to take their place but alongside the TikTok ban in India, they were also among the 58 apps banned too. I guess they say it’s hypocrisy because it’s ‘Trump’ doing the ban. But when Biden started to tell his own staff to delete TikTok from their phones it’s apparent that it is more of a security concern than a ‘Trump embarrassment’ issue, such that they have less trust in Chinese-owned tech companies in general.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoAnd remember that it's not just a matter of trust - we know, from people who've reverse engineered the app, that TikTok is engaging in extremely invasive data collection. It was just a month ago that they were caught copying the contents of your clipboard from the background!
- Fjolsvith 6y agoIf you follow the ownership of WIRED, you end up with Sam Newhouse. https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2016/07/so-newhouse-gave-us-trump-now-they-will-profit-by-taking-him-down/ https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2016/07/so-newhouse-gave-...