6 ms·

I am focusing on WeChat only with this comment. It is not narrowly tailored or least restrictive. Narrowly tailored means the law must be precisely written to

I am focusing on WeChat only with this comment. It is not narrowly tailored or least restrictive. Narrowly tailored means the law must be precisely written to minimize the 1st Amendment impact. In this case, this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China. There is no practical alternative to WeChat as all other similar apps are banned in China, so this order is extremely restrictive.

ReptileMan 6y ago
Can you provide a solution that has less 1A impact about Chinese app ran on Chinese servers? I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication with anything less than a ban on some level.
- TheDong 6y ago
  Yeah, I can provide an alternative solution: ban its use within the government for sensitive uses, but allow its use by citizens. Issue a public notice to citizens that any wechat communications may be known by the chinese government. If there's an actual national security issue with private citizens using the app, they should air it and give it a chance to be addressed, or succeed in court on its merits. > I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication Frankly, that shouldn't be a goal of the us government for private citizens. The us government can protect government communications all it wants, but private citizens should be free to use chinese services if they want. I know someone learning chinese in an american college, and one of their resources is using weibo (a chinese twitter clone basically, definitely hosted on chinese servers). If US private citizens using wechat is "china intercepting us communication", than this person using weibo and emailing chinese students to learn would count too, right? It seems like a clear violation of the 1st amendment, and the justification seems very flimsy, at best.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    The issue is not strictly limited to 1A issues or concern over intercepted communications, though. There's a much larger elephant in the room: a social media app, wildly popular with easily influenced young people, that the Chinese Communist Party has, effectively, editorial control over. That's, imo, the most concerning issue here. Imagine what you could do with this power. (I ask that question a bit tongue in cheek, because we should also be asking it of Facebook/Twitter/Google et al.)
    - pishpash 6y ago
      Imagine what you could do with a newspaper where the editor has editorial control. Oh the horrors!
      - remarkEon 6y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you admitting that TikTok and WeChat are essentially “news” apps that CCP has editorial control over?
  - pishpash 6y ago
    It is also violation of free association, because social apps have a community aspect.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > Yeah, I can provide an alternative solution: ban its use within the government for sensitive uses, but allow its use by citizens. Use by citizens is already allowed; the order doesn't address it at all.
bgorman 6y ago
Honest question: Can you just use email?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- filoleg 6y ago
  Yeah, and if I ban you from using postal services, you can just rely on using pigeon carriers for mail. If what I said sounds ridiculous, that's exactly how your email proposition sounds to people who are used to WeChat. We can argue semantics and details, like "but it isn't the same, because this and that, etc.". But, at the end of the day, if email was even close to being as convenient as WeChat for the purposes that most people use WeChat for, people would've been using email already.
  - castratikron 6y ago
    It just seems strange that there's only one option available. In the US there are so many options that I find myself using an app just to talk to a specific friend, e.g. to talk to John, I'll use Twitter DMs, but I'll use Facebook to talk to Mike. Maybe this is a lesson to not consolidate literally every function of daily life into one superapp?
    - codyb 6y ago
      I think a lot of the issues on that front stem from the Chinese side where the CCP has placed vast restrictions on internet and application use.
    - jobigoud 6y ago
      And if for example Facebook messaging is banned you will then have to talk to Mike using Twitter DM which may be an big pain in the ass, maybe Mike isn't on Twitter or can't use it.
    - filoleg 6y ago
      >Maybe this is a lesson to not consolidate literally every function of daily life into one superapp? Sure, the thing is, people in China didn't choose to consolidate it all in one app, their government made that choice for them. Your examples with Twitter and FB are perfect here, because both of those services are blocked in China.
golemiprague 6y ago
That's exactly the point, it's a measure intended to cause pain so the Chinese will change their way and trade fairly. About time that somebody grow some balls and put the Chinese in their place. For too long they got a lot of leeway and while it made sense in the beginning to help them improve the life of their citizens, by now they are capable enough and should start trade fairly like any other country.
chrchang523 6y ago
And whose fault is it that "all other similar apps are banned in China"? Given that context, without overwhelming evidence that there's absolutely no connection between the Chinese government and WeChat, this is fair play, and the only valid arguments against this move are tactical rather than legal.
- jpmoral 6y ago
  >And whose fault is it that "all other similar apps are banned in China"? I'm not sure that 'China is doing it too' has any bearing on the lawfulness of US government action. >without overwhelming evidence that there's absolutely no connection between the Chinese government and WeChat I think the burden of proof goes the other way.
  - chrchang523 6y ago
    If the argument was restricted to a claim that the technical details of the ban should be slightly different, you might have a point. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Something along these lines has been compelled by geopolitical game theory for years, as soon as it became clear that the preferred no-retaliation tactic was not going to work here. Laws will be updated as necessary to adapt to the strategic imperative. As a Chinese person, I'll take this over internment camps any day of the week. edit: To downvoters: I lived and worked in Shenzhen and Beijing in 2011-12. I aspired to do work there that was useful to humanity as a whole, both inside and outside of China, and it was already perfectly obvious then that I'd need to make use of my work not require any trust in the Chinese government. Not because of an existing law, but because of common sense regarding how much the rest of the world was going to continue putting up with. So I open-sourced everything that mattered, and that work did in fact go on to become trusted by professionals on both sides of the Great Firewall. Perhaps I'm still setting an unreasonable standard, but it's not one that I didn't try to meet myself.
  - unishark 6y ago
    > I'm not sure that 'China is doing it too' has any bearing on the lawfulness of US government action. But that's essentially the basis for the other side of the argument in this case, namely that because China only allows certain apps which are hosted and monitored within China, America must too allow those apps which are hosted and monitored within China.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> In this case, this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China. Didn't look that way to me? The order prohibits services from providing the application or updates to it via an "online mobile application store in the US", it prohibits services from doing any payment processing for WeChat, and it prohibits services from providing hosting or content delivery for WeChat. But while it's doing its best to make it difficult for Americans to obtain WeChat, (1) it does not actually prohibit them from doing so, and (2) it very much doesn't prohibit anyone from using WeChat. (Except for monetary transfer; that's prohibited.)
- SoylentYellow 6y ago
  > But while it's doing its best to make it difficult for Americans to obtain WeChat By banning WeChat on the app stores, this will eventally restrict the entire general public's access to their platform of choice for 1A protected expression, because their access is subject to never buying a new phone, never resetting their phone, and praying WeChat never issues a required update. As time passes and the above situations occur to more and more users, the 1A impact continues to grow until it encompasses all users. The courts are quite capable of seeing how today's ban will affect tomorrow's free speech. Also, before someone makes the "sideloading" argument, consider that on iOS it is effectively impossible for the general public. On Android, it is cumbersome and confusing enough that it presents a significant barrier as well. The courts will not ignore that.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  Translated to a more familiar medium, the analogy would be: “bookstores can no longer sell that title, but that’s ok because people who already own a copy can still read it.” I’m not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a pretty weak counterargument to me.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    I agree with your analogy, and I agree that this is a terrible move. But for the demographic mentioned ("this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China"), I find it vanishingly unlikely that any of them doesn't already have wechat. The order has essentially zero immediate effects on them.
stevespang 6y ago
. . . as all other similar apps are banned in China. That's the point. Why should China be allowed to ban multiple US apps, but they get free reign for WeChat in US ? No, I don't think so . . . .

ReptileMan 6y ago

Can you provide a solution that has less 1A impact about Chinese app ran on Chinese servers? I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication with anything less than a ban on some level.

TheDong 6y ago
Yeah, I can provide an alternative solution: ban its use within the government for sensitive uses, but allow its use by citizens. Issue a public notice to citizens that any wechat communications may be known by the chinese government. If there's an actual national security issue with private citizens using the app, they should air it and give it a chance to be addressed, or succeed in court on its merits. > I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication Frankly, that shouldn't be a goal of the us government for private citizens. The us government can protect government communications all it wants, but private citizens should be free to use chinese services if they want. I know someone learning chinese in an american college, and one of their resources is using weibo (a chinese twitter clone basically, definitely hosted on chinese servers). If US private citizens using wechat is "china intercepting us communication", than this person using weibo and emailing chinese students to learn would count too, right? It seems like a clear violation of the 1st amendment, and the justification seems very flimsy, at best.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  The issue is not strictly limited to 1A issues or concern over intercepted communications, though. There's a much larger elephant in the room: a social media app, wildly popular with easily influenced young people, that the Chinese Communist Party has, effectively, editorial control over. That's, imo, the most concerning issue here. Imagine what you could do with this power. (I ask that question a bit tongue in cheek, because we should also be asking it of Facebook/Twitter/Google et al.)
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Imagine what you could do with a newspaper where the editor has editorial control. Oh the horrors!
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you admitting that TikTok and WeChat are essentially “news” apps that CCP has editorial control over?
- pishpash 6y ago
  It is also violation of free association, because social apps have a community aspect.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Yeah, I can provide an alternative solution: ban its use within the government for sensitive uses, but allow its use by citizens. Use by citizens is already allowed; the order doesn't address it at all.

bgorman 6y ago

Honest question: Can you just use email?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
filoleg 6y ago
Yeah, and if I ban you from using postal services, you can just rely on using pigeon carriers for mail. If what I said sounds ridiculous, that's exactly how your email proposition sounds to people who are used to WeChat. We can argue semantics and details, like "but it isn't the same, because this and that, etc.". But, at the end of the day, if email was even close to being as convenient as WeChat for the purposes that most people use WeChat for, people would've been using email already.
- castratikron 6y ago
  It just seems strange that there's only one option available. In the US there are so many options that I find myself using an app just to talk to a specific friend, e.g. to talk to John, I'll use Twitter DMs, but I'll use Facebook to talk to Mike. Maybe this is a lesson to not consolidate literally every function of daily life into one superapp?
  - codyb 6y ago
    I think a lot of the issues on that front stem from the Chinese side where the CCP has placed vast restrictions on internet and application use.
  - jobigoud 6y ago
    And if for example Facebook messaging is banned you will then have to talk to Mike using Twitter DM which may be an big pain in the ass, maybe Mike isn't on Twitter or can't use it.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >Maybe this is a lesson to not consolidate literally every function of daily life into one superapp? Sure, the thing is, people in China didn't choose to consolidate it all in one app, their government made that choice for them. Your examples with Twitter and FB are perfect here, because both of those services are blocked in China.

golemiprague 6y ago

That's exactly the point, it's a measure intended to cause pain so the Chinese will change their way and trade fairly. About time that somebody grow some balls and put the Chinese in their place. For too long they got a lot of leeway and while it made sense in the beginning to help them improve the life of their citizens, by now they are capable enough and should start trade fairly like any other country.

chrchang523 6y ago

And whose fault is it that "all other similar apps are banned in China"? Given that context, without overwhelming evidence that there's absolutely no connection between the Chinese government and WeChat, this is fair play, and the only valid arguments against this move are tactical rather than legal.

jpmoral 6y ago
>And whose fault is it that "all other similar apps are banned in China"? I'm not sure that 'China is doing it too' has any bearing on the lawfulness of US government action. >without overwhelming evidence that there's absolutely no connection between the Chinese government and WeChat I think the burden of proof goes the other way.
- chrchang523 6y ago
  If the argument was restricted to a claim that the technical details of the ban should be slightly different, you might have a point. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Something along these lines has been compelled by geopolitical game theory for years, as soon as it became clear that the preferred no-retaliation tactic was not going to work here. Laws will be updated as necessary to adapt to the strategic imperative. As a Chinese person, I'll take this over internment camps any day of the week. edit: To downvoters: I lived and worked in Shenzhen and Beijing in 2011-12. I aspired to do work there that was useful to humanity as a whole, both inside and outside of China, and it was already perfectly obvious then that I'd need to make use of my work not require any trust in the Chinese government. Not because of an existing law, but because of common sense regarding how much the rest of the world was going to continue putting up with. So I open-sourced everything that mattered, and that work did in fact go on to become trusted by professionals on both sides of the Great Firewall. Perhaps I'm still setting an unreasonable standard, but it's not one that I didn't try to meet myself.
- unishark 6y ago
  > I'm not sure that 'China is doing it too' has any bearing on the lawfulness of US government action. But that's essentially the basis for the other side of the argument in this case, namely that because China only allows certain apps which are hosted and monitored within China, America must too allow those apps which are hosted and monitored within China.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> In this case, this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China. Didn't look that way to me? The order prohibits services from providing the application or updates to it via an "online mobile application store in the US", it prohibits services from doing any payment processing for WeChat, and it prohibits services from providing hosting or content delivery for WeChat. But while it's doing its best to make it difficult for Americans to obtain WeChat, (1) it does not actually prohibit them from doing so, and (2) it very much doesn't prohibit anyone from using WeChat. (Except for monetary transfer; that's prohibited.)

SoylentYellow 6y ago
> But while it's doing its best to make it difficult for Americans to obtain WeChat By banning WeChat on the app stores, this will eventally restrict the entire general public's access to their platform of choice for 1A protected expression, because their access is subject to never buying a new phone, never resetting their phone, and praying WeChat never issues a required update. As time passes and the above situations occur to more and more users, the 1A impact continues to grow until it encompasses all users. The courts are quite capable of seeing how today's ban will affect tomorrow's free speech. Also, before someone makes the "sideloading" argument, consider that on iOS it is effectively impossible for the general public. On Android, it is cumbersome and confusing enough that it presents a significant barrier as well. The courts will not ignore that.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
Translated to a more familiar medium, the analogy would be: “bookstores can no longer sell that title, but that’s ok because people who already own a copy can still read it.” I’m not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a pretty weak counterargument to me.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  I agree with your analogy, and I agree that this is a terrible move. But for the demographic mentioned ("this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China"), I find it vanishingly unlikely that any of them doesn't already have wechat. The order has essentially zero immediate effects on them.

stevespang 6y ago

. . . as all other similar apps are banned in China. That's the point. Why should China be allowed to ban multiple US apps, but they get free reign for WeChat in US ? No, I don't think so . . . .