6 ms·
That additional specious condition on threat to national security is what is problematic. 1. Expert opinion seems to be that the perceived threats indicated in
by publicola1990 6y ago
That additional specious condition on threat to national security is what is problematic.
1. Expert opinion seems to be that the perceived threats indicated in the case of TikTok are vague and over hyped, and there is no concrete evidence produced.
2.Federal Government may not have sufficient authority to promulgate such a ban, even on grounds of national security. May be possible to squeeze out the cash flow of the company through trade restrictions, may be able to mandate that this app cannot be used by federal employees while on duty, may be even possible to disallow their usage on federal government premises, but it cannot ask Apple and Google to take an app down from the app stores.
3. If that is the case then we are moving into a government-licencing regime in the US, effectively. That is, you can have your app distributed only if you have the necessary license/authorization from fed government which can be revoked at any moment. I don't think that is the right direction. So to have such special powers for ostensibly national security purposes is undesirable and detrimental to the very system that US is claiming to champion.
The whole episode is wrapped up in a frenzy of reactionary whipped up paranoia that is reaching an alarming cacophony considering the commentary here.
This is obviously a nuanced matter, and needs to be approached as such, not with a coldwar-era Hollywood Manichaeian dualism.
- glaive123 6y agoYour point #1 is absolutely false. Please provide evidence of this. There is bountiful public evidence of national security risk. And there is likely MUCH more non-public evidence. It's a good thing HN identified new accounts with green text, because it makes it a little more transparent when someone is creating an account just to spread misinformation. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is full of 50-cent army commenters. I hope @dang is actively monitoring this.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- publicola1990 6y agoThe fact is that Apple/Google hasn't found them in serious infringement of anything. The article from CNN seems to echo the view in point 1: "Although leaders like Pompeo have described TikTok as a clear and present danger, many in the cybersecurity community say the reality is more complex. While TikTok could become a clear threat to US security under certain scenarios, they say, the danger is currently largely hypothetical.." https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/tech/tiktok-security-threat/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/tech/tiktok-security-threat/i...
- tannedNerd 6y agoThe lack of response on being called a troll is pretty deafening. I think it is easy to see this account is a byte-dance or ccp paid troll.
- tom-_- 6y agoSo by this reasoning, if commenter responded with a emphatic "Am not!", that would somehow validate he's not a CCP agent? His response was a link to support a contentious claim which is that the security threat is overstated. That's a reasonable position.
- tannedNerd 6y agoNo it’s not. He/she has a brand new account. Hacker News isn’t exactly a new site so users with new accounts need to prove they are trustworthy. It’s the exact reason why they flag new accounts, because if you are using a throwaway account you are doing something you don’t want tracked back to you. What’s your defense on that? Or are you rushing to defend another ccp account?
- tom-_- 6y agoA flawed assumption: A new account does not mean it's a throwaway. The heretofore anonymous user may simply have found a topic worth commenting on. Secondly, my user is over 6 years old and I've not made any comments in favor or against the CCP in my entire history. I simply commented on what I find to be a logical fallacy. So I'm curious what you base your assumptions on.
- tannedNerd 6y agoThen why has every person questioning this account has been Silenced by flagging?
- tom-_- 6y ago