14 ms·

The 'Insanely Broad' Restrict Act Could Ban Much More Than Just TikTok

471 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

brucethemoose2 4y ago
The bill's text has been available since (at least) March 23: https://web.archive.org/web/20230323142040/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://web.archive.org/web/20230323142040/https://www.congr... Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling?
- jjcon 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    Mmmm, I don't buy that. The EFF's old (March 16) take is also negative but more modest, but I am not sure if they had access to the full text: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/government-hasnt-justified-tiktok-ban https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/government-hasnt-justi...
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      To be fair, the presence of genuine criticism doesn't exclude the possibility of astroturfing. That's sort of the whole point of astroturfing, to attempt to blend in with the grassroots.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    This exactly is something that I fear...if state level actors had free access to our data and potentially a machine to shape public opinion, we can't expect them to give up at the first sign of resistance. The balance between privacy and security is hard, but it's also necessary here.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Are you now talking about the US politicians or the CCP ones?
      - jpgvm 4y ago
        I would hope both. Why do you think there was and remains so much pushback around GDPR. The attitude of Americans towards that legislation is telling.
    - WillPostForFood 4y ago
      You are free not to use TikTok, and free to remove the app from your child's phone (if you have kids), but don't use the Government to tell me I can't use TikTok. This is such hyped up nonsense. We live in such a clown world we are going to end up in a world war over a lip sync app.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        I'm also free not to smoke, but they still banned smoking and most indoor regions because it can be harm to other people. So can the widespread use of a propaganda platform like tick tock
  - angio 4y ago
    Are you saying Joseph Cox from Vice has been paid to be critical of the act? EFF and ACLU also came out against this, have they been paid too?
    - jjcon 4y ago
      No, that isn't what astroturfing typically implies. Astroturfing is spreading FUD and misinformation in more automatable or massive ways, which in turn will cause articles to be written that echo these misinterpretations or misinformation. EFF and ACLU don't exactly have much credibility left in my book, but that is a personal opinion. EFF is still defending Internet Archive in the pirated books scheme. ACLU has retreated from the USA first amendment, which was their main organizational principle. Not exactly a moral high ground anymore. https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.... https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive
      - WillPostForFood 4y ago
        The FUD here is the overhyped risk of TikTok. Facebook didn't flip the election in 2016, and TikTok can't brainwash you in 2023. TikTok didn't read your mail, steal your bank account, listen to your calls. If it did, let's get Tim Cook to testify about exactly how it happened (it didn't happen).
        dd36 4y ago
        Media can brain wash you…
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Everyone who thinks maybe it doesn't have real effects on society has missed to the last 10 or so years. Even if you aren't, you're some superhuman apparently, you live in a society with millions of people who will very much fall over and will very much end up opposing the future of your country. Look at healthy misinformation machines managed to turn the republicans from incredibly anti-Russia literally saying they are the biggest threat in the world a couple of election cycles ago, to the party with people calling for us to just hand Ukraine to them China was implicated not too long ago with meddling in Canada's elections. They are absolutely going to use this advantage on us.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    There is Astroturfing going on, but I don't know what direction it's going in. There's two separate bills going on[1], and it seems like the worst creatures in Washington are using TikTok as an excuse to severely expand the surveillance state in the bill that's getting all the press, under the guise of "banning TikTok". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363410
  - camillomiller 4y ago
    You know what the supreme irony is? The China scare (“oh no, totalitarians are coming for us”) is pure manufacturing of consent and its goal is to pass bills that will REDUCE democracy in America.
    - computerfriend 4y ago
      Both can be true: the China scare is real and lawmakers are trying to pass democracy-eroding bills.
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        It’s more of an excuse for the US lawmakers. There’s no need for new legislation to restrict trade with a foreign company.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 49531 4y ago
        Sure, but in my experience US lawmakers act much more hostile towards me as a US citizen than China ever has or will.
        computerfriend 4y ago
        I'm not sure how that's related. For what it's worth, my experience has been the opposite.
        oska 4y ago
        Without wanting you to reveal personal details, care to tell us how ?
    - NoGravitas 4y ago
      It's always projection with these people.
  - theGnuMe 4y ago
    Yep!
  - eru 4y ago
    Where can I sign up to receive my pay? Alternatively, I'd be willing to shill for George Soros, too, if there's enough money in it.
- throwaway4good 4y ago
  You had the TikTok hearings which wasn’t a good look for US congress. Plus a few popular US politicians finally deciding against the bill.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    That hearing with the CEO wasn't a good look for TikTok, either. I especially liked the part where he said his kids don't use it. And "Project Texas" sounds like something Jìan-Yáng would come up with in Silicon Valley.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling? Media circus. The obvious endgame isn’t banning, it’s divestment. This happens all the time with critical infrastructure. We’re getting full-press coverage because it’s a social media asset and China fears are a bipartisan winner. To the extent this isn’t purely messaging, it would involve a strengthened Cfius. Not the power to randomly ban, but to ban acquisition and investment. (Even this draft bill targets transactions.)
- dhc02 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but your question is why it took 6 whole days?
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    Yeah, pretty much. That came off as more accusatory than I intended. I am not implying a conspiracy/skepticism, but I really thought VICE (for instance) would pick this up before 6 days.
    - anonGone73 4y ago
      It was on TikTok 6 Days ago...
      - brucethemoose2 4y ago
        But not the HN front page, not like this. I guess HN is realtively "slow" news now?
- hammock 4y ago
  >Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling? Maybe because you mostly read mainstream media. I saw this being talked about in corners of Twitter, Telegram, Truth Social etc the day it was dropped
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    Thats a fair point. Its more of a time issue for me. I have cut out Discord, forums, twitter, telegram and such because they suck so much time, and I think I can manage HN.
    - hammock 4y ago
      Totally fair. Don’t think I was being critical. We’re probably better off without all the noise (from any source)
hunglee2 4y ago
authoritarianism always arrives with the same rhetoric of needing to 'protect the people'
- Y_Y 4y ago
  "Won't somebody _please_ think of the children?"
  - lynx23 4y ago
    That is exactly how you weaponize women and family-centric males. Use the big-eyes-trigger and you are set to go.
    - Aachen 4y ago
      One doesn't have to be family-centric or female to care about children. This sounds like you consider the aforementioned groups easily manipulated. Not sure if I'm understanding your intended meaning correctly.
      - lynx23 4y ago
        Yes, I totally consider the mentioned groups easily manipulated... Not a surprise, given that there is actually hormonal-bonding between parents and their kids. Why do you think they are not special in this regard?
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Does it though? I can think of several instances where it's arrived with calls of ousting a corrupt government. Military coups are invariably authoritarian and often motivated this way.
- gdy 4y ago
  Yeah, the law sounds similar to what we've got in Russia. Don't go this road, guys. Update: Read the article a bit further and it says they could criminalize the use of VPN. Even here in Russia we don't have this. At least for now)
throwntoday 4y ago
I think at some point I'll just stop using the internet. Maybe being a luddite isn't so bad.
- lynx23 4y ago
  I already consciously decided to ignore Instragram, TikTok and Mutter. I will be a happy tmux user still while the young are already immersed in nausea-provoking VR and AR experiences. Looking forward to being happy by not joingin the crowd.
nikanj 4y ago
Isn't this just an US social media protection act? Meta is getting their asses handed to them by TikTok, so they do the obvious and lobby for banning of the competition
- jpgvm 4y ago
  Huawei 2.0. We can't compete so we will just ban the competition. A story as old as American industry.
  - edgineer 4y ago
    To be fair, China's bans on Google et al. make this somewhat retaliatory, not purely anticompetitive.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I don't think it's quite the same thing, is it? I mean, Google isn't banned, they just can't/won't fulfill all the demands by the CCP. The end result is the same, but it's the difference between "you're not allowed to open a bar" and "you're not allowed to open a bar without getting a license and obeying the laws". The problem with TikTok is that it seems to do nothing that domestic US companies don't do, so it's perfectly legal. Outlawing the problematic aspect of social media would essentially destroy Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and severely damage Youtube, so they need to make it a real ban on the company, not the company's practices.
      - htag 4y ago
        > Outlawing the problematic aspect of social media would essentially destroy Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and severely damage Youtube, so they need to make it a real ban on the company, not the company's practices. I wonder if we would be okay with removing algorithmic feeds/recommendations. Feeds must either be a chronological order of content or it must be a human editor selected assortment of content. Leave room for algorithmic spam/malware blocking. I honestly think that leaves Facebooks/Twitter/Reddit/Youtube in operation, although more layoffs might be required.
Mizoguchi 4y ago
It's a bill guys. It has technically 0% chance of becoming a law the way it is currently redacted.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Bills get passed as drafted all the time, what are you talking about? Sure there are opportunities for amendment etc but it's not some sort of guarantee that it will be heavily revised.
  - Mizoguchi 4y ago
    No they don't get passed all the time. Less than 5% and only after a long debate, many changes and amendments. This one in particular has no chance of becoming law the way is redacted, not even chance of reaching the Senate.
tm-guimaraes 4y ago
At the end of day, isn’t Free Software the solution? Every issue with power and control of all these big organizations steem from the fact that their software does not respect the 4 freedoms. The west very much likes “free” trade, but how can you have free trade between so many different regulations and so many power disparities? At least with Free Software, even if you don’t want to trust the entity you are dealing with, at least you can inspect, learn and adapt its software, so that people don’t have a big service disruption. Stallman was right.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > isn’t Free Software the solution In a vacuum. In practice, these platforms take massive resources to run and improve, and consumers won’t deal with the inconvenience of distributed systems.
  - tm-guimaraes 4y ago
    The point is Free Software, not distributed systems. It can still be a centrilized service, and be Free Software at the same time.
- est 4y ago
  > isn’t Free Software the solution Free software doesn't lay cables under the Pacific ocean.
- FredPret 4y ago
  Platforms != software Platforms require wide, simultaneous participation by content producers and consumers, which requires popularity, which requires persistent marketing efforts, which requires a mountain of capital. Platforms are much more a business with a brand than it is software.
  - tm-guimaraes 4y ago
    the issues are trust. not whether you can get users to produce content for it. edit: someone else mentioned distributed systems, again the point is not these became decentralized or federated or anything like it, the point is them being Free, as in you can see how things are done, it gets harder to perverse the trust. And lets say a bad platform from a foreign entity is shown to compromise your national security, there are multiple options besides just showing the issues, presenting solutions/patches to the problem that troubles your nation, and last case scenario, migration path to the citizens using that service to a in.country managed one. The last one was being tried, having Microsoft/Oracle managing TikTok in the states, would a situation like that become easier with time, had all these platforms been Free Software?
andrewstuart 4y ago
The correct way to position a ban on TikTok is by comparison with China's ban on USA websites. Something along the lines of "unless China gives reciprocal access to all the banned websites listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... then we cannot permit China to have access to US web audiences". It is unequal and unfair and anticompetitive for China to ban hundreds of US based websites and it simply cannot stand for China to have unfettered access to the US web audience. These are some of the websites banned in China: Google Facebook Twitte Instagram YouTube WhatsApp Dropbox The New York TimesThe Washington Post Bloomberg News ReutersThe Wall Street Journal BBC Wikipedia (English version) Twitch Vimeo SoundCloud WordPress.com Tumblr Flickr Medium The Guardian Le Monde Deutsche Welle Radio Free Asia Voice of America GitHub Slack Zoom LinkedIn Snapchat Pinterest Quora Netflix Hulu HBO Disney+ ESPN Microsoft Azure Apple iCloud Steam Reddit Imgur Dailymotion Archive.org Amnesty International Human Rights Watch Reporters Without Borders
- throwaway4good 4y ago
  US companies are allowed to operate social media services in China if they store data locally and follow Chinese law. Apple and Microsoft does this.
  - jjcon 4y ago
    Not even close to accurate. Not at all. Wikimedia has been trying to get China to allow a stripped down version of wikipedia in china for close to a decade now. It would be hosted in china and stripped of all political content deemed inappropriate by the CCP, still no.
    - est 4y ago
      China does require physical servers in China to operate user-generated-content websites and need staff oncall to censor content 24x7. I don't think wikimedia can do any of that. Yes it's a stupid totalitarian law but there's that.
    - 4y ago
teekert 4y ago
I've been enjoying the occasional discussions about the Restrict Act on Coder Radio [0]. Like the EU's chat control it's an insane overreach. Both give powers to government that, when fully executed could and should lead to protests. [0] https://podverse.fm/podcast/ZXd_1Ojd9 https://podverse.fm/podcast/ZXd_1Ojd9
anonymousiam 4y ago
When both Tucker Carlson and AOC agree that the RESTRICT Act is a bad thing, people should take notice.
- FpUser 4y ago
  They also say that unobstructed daytime sky is blue.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    And yet Congress is not trying to pass a law that says it's yellow, so what is the relevance of your comment?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Theyagree on stuff all the time, and 90% of the time when they both agree on something it's especially misinformed and especially populist.
Hnrobert42 4y ago
I wonder if China is behind the push against the RESTRICT act that we are seeing in. The media. I wonder if we would know.
- angio 4y ago
  Why would they when it validates their internet strategy? It just shows the CCP was 10 years ahead of the US when it comes to restricting what apps citizens can use (to "protect" them ofcourse).
  - htag 4y ago
    If China benefits from TikTok then it's a fair question to ask if they are working to stop the ban of TikTok.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      What benefits China more: tiktok, or turning US into oppressive state that jails people for accessing internet wrongly?
    - angio 4y ago
      You're thinking short term. If the US bans tiktok, more countries will follow and american tech companies will have a hard time competing there. On these grounds chinese companies will be able to compete better because they're already used to running multiple versions of the same app targeted at different markets.
- scotty79 4y ago
  I think RESTRICT bill is fully in the interest of China to the point that it may have sponsored it covertly. It will basically change US into China 2.0 from the point of view of their citizens. It will crumble the facade freedoms that US was trying to put as an argument why two party system is any better than one party system.
jtaft 4y ago
Anyone have alternative arguments why TikTok is being banned? I heard arguments since TikTok doesn’t have public stock that wealthy individuals are losing out. Same with very liberal ideology is on TikTok, with is trying to be controlled.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  As other social networks, it is a cesspool of hate and misinformation, damaging to mental health, and can be used to manipulate public opinion very effectively at scale.
  - wincy 4y ago
    Then why only TikTok? It’s obviously protectionist nonsense for US social media companies.
    - shagie 4y ago
      TikTok was used by its parent company ByteDance to reveal location information in order to correlate the accounts of journalists and former employees. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-bytedance-workers-fired-data-access-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by... > TikTok has admitted that it used its own app to spy on reporters as part of an attempt to track down the journalists’ sources, according to an internal email. > The data was accessed by employees of ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company and was used to track the reporters’ physical movements. The company’s chief internal auditor Chris Lepitak, who led the team involved in the operation, has been fired, while his China-based manager Song Ye has resigned. > They looked at IP addresses of journalists who were using the TikTok app in an attempt to learn if they were in the same location as employees suspected of leaking confidential information. The effort, which targeted former BuzzFeed reporter Emily Baker-White and Financial Times reporter Cristina Criddle among other reporters, was unsuccessful, but resulted in at least four members of staff based in both the US and China improperly accessing the data, according to an email from ByteDance general counsel Erich Andersen. All four have been fired. Company officials said they were taking additional steps to protect user data. --- The corresponding part is that the CCP has a stake in ByteDance and control over a board seat. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-bytedance-golden-shares-chinese-government-communist-party-board-2023-3 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-b...
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> The bill only applies to technology linked to a “foreign adversary.” Those countries include China (as well as Hong Kong); Cuba; Iran; North Korea; Russia, and Venezuela. I don't see the problem. We already restrict trade or banking with these countries. Social media apps and software are products like any other.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > “foreign adversary.” Those countries include China This is a pretty massive policy shift, no? All the other countries are effectively at frozen-conflict or proxy war status with the US, and heavily sanctioned. Putting China on that list is a major step towards at least a Cold War with China, let alone a hot war. "You can no longer buy anything manufactured in China" would wreck the US economy in the medium term. It would also probably make the war over Taiwan inevitable.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Do Chinese state-backed cyber attacks count as a cold war?
    - pjc50 4y ago
      Nobody seems to really care about them, regardless of the source. The level I would regard as a cold war is the level I remember between the US and the USSR: almost no travel and trade. So long as there's two million containers per month arriving from China, there is no way you could describe the situation as a cold war. Just an exchange of stiffly worded letters.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > Putting China on that list is a major step towards at least a Cold War with China, let alone a hot war. The only way to prevent war. America is the only thing standing between them and multiple wars in the South China Sea, and we must continue to be willing to support nations like Taiwan. Giving them access to widespread propaganda tools, dramatically produces a chances that we do when we need to.
kthejoker2 4y ago
[flagged]
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  If you think either state cares enough about hn commenters to go through some process of surveillance or whatever, don't you think they'd just hire a real person to do the psyop? Like, this isn't a particularly huge social network, I don't see what benefit the automation would give you here. But then again.. The China-hawkness of this place is sometimes suspiciously a little strong. So you might have a point.
  - tcgv 4y ago
    > If you think either state cares enough about hn commenters to go through some process of surveillance or whatever, don't you think they'd just hire a real person to do the psyop? I think it's fair to assume that they care and and that they have people on payroll for this purpose. HN would most likely be just another entry in their list of targeted boards/discussion sites. The effort to develop and operate a tool for this purpose is minimal. One person assisted with such automated tool would be able to monitor and interact with thousands, if not millions, of online discussions to spread their governement's views/propaganda/missinformation.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > Engaging one is the social media equivalent of stepping on a landmine Except you keep your legs and there is no chance of bleeding to death. So what is the danger you envision?
- Aachen 4y ago
  People built detectors for GPT texts. If you want to make such accusations, especially casting suspicion on a whole thread, you should back it up with that. Otherwise you're the equivalent of a foreign troll that seeks to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
segmondy 4y ago
COULD? WOULD. WILL.
sparc24 4y ago
If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be. . . . . Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. —C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock
- BoxOfRain 4y ago
  That C.S. Lewis quote is among my favourites, he put a key pillar of my beliefs into words better than I ever could.
- g9yuayon 4y ago
  A key question is what emboldened the politicians to propose such bill? It seems the constituents of the law makers have been getting more and more complacent when it comes to giving the government unchecked power, as long as there is a "good" narrative.
  - akomtu 4y ago
    Note that EU has made a similar power grab[1]. This means that whatever has emboldened the two is not nation-specific. Now compare this with the recent Schwab's rhetoric on WEF. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35345612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35345612
ourmandave 4y ago
Isn't this law making 101? Version 1.0 of a new bill gets passed and made law. And a flurry of lawsuits challenging various parts of it wind through the courts. Based on those rulings the law is either amended or repealed.
twawaaay 4y ago
I think what people are forgetting is that any law will most likely be tested in the future with intent to abuse it. People are still in a struggle over single words or even punctuation in the constitution written by people who had no idea there will be cars or Internet or CCTV cameras or abortion pills or AR-15s in the future. It is not about whether we want or don't want TikTok. It is obviously bad and there is absolutely no good coming out of it. But it is about what other consequences the law will have. Any law needs to be written thoughtfully and based on principles. Only principles have even a chance to stand the test of time.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  > It is obviously bad and there is absolutely no good coming out of it. arguably untrue. easy to list reasons, however the indomitable one is the breadth of its usage within a free market already qualifies its utility for the masses.
  - 1MachineElf 4y ago
    You could make a similar argument about Opium in 19th century China, or Fentanyl in present-day US.
    - eru 4y ago
      Why not about opium in the present-day US? Criminalizing drugs drives producers and users to more potent and compact forms, like opium gave way to heroin which gave way to fentanyl. (Very simplified.) Opium is bulky. When the US outlawed alcohol for a while, the market also switched from relatively bulky beer to harder spirits. --- Aside from that, opium and fentanyl etc obviously have some good aspects, otherwise people wouldn't take them. Duh. That doesn't mean that the good aspects outweigh the bad aspects in someone else's opinion.
Eumenes 4y ago
The bill is evil, no doubt, but I can't help but think this crap already exists. Our ISPs and internet infrastructure are essentially nationalized for the purpose of spying/information collection. We found this out with Snowden/NSA. Our corrupt intelligence agencies can get any information they want. This just provides the legal backing, more or less retrofitting things. It makes me wonder if this is in preparation for a larger conflict with Russia or other enemies. US needs control of the propaganda mechanism, needs support of the people. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, we just write covert complicated laws now, with bi-partisan support, because both sides get their money from the same people.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  It does not already exist that interesting with an adversary country site is punishable by prison time. Forget spring, this is active policing.
hereme888 4y ago
If they do try to ban VPNs, it will be just like when they tried to block people from using encryption decades ago. People will do it, they won't be able to enforce it, and the people will win. There's too many VPN users these days for government to stop. Government is not "all powerful".
- krolden 4y ago
  Thats not the intent here. The only reason for this wording is so if they do happen to catch you for something else, even unrelated, they'll be able yo tack on extra charges after they discover you were using a vpn. Also if they suspect you of using a vpn, they could get a warrant based on that alone.
- btbuildem 4y ago
  We use corporate VPNs for daily work ffs
user3939382 4y ago
Unfortunately when it comes to government abuse vs the People, we're like 0-10 at this point. We know the playbook: roll these ridiculous bills out, spark outrage, shift the Overton Window, either kill the bill or amend it, and in 12-36 months roll it out again until the corrupt politicians and the security state behind this stuff win by attrition. We lost fucking habeus corpus with the NDAA that gets renewed every year! How are we doing with the Patriot Act? Is James Clapper in prison yet? Assange is. It never ends.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  Well, it's good that Assange is in prison. His contributions have made all of this so much worse.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    How so? I don't follow the logic here. Do you also think that about Snowden? Pre-2013, technologists would laugh at anyone suggesting the NSA was spying on US citizens. There were tinfoil hat jokes and everything. Snowden showed it was not only happening, but was commonplace and operating on a massive scale. Assange, like Snowden, revealed all sorts of government and military corruption which was directly enabled by things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA. So how did "his actions" make their effects "so much worse?"
monetus 4y ago
This is a messaging bill - a bill designed to tell something to a constituency, rather than to become law. - It is jockeying to cultivate influence. The idiocy contained within the bill itself probably doesn't even have the sincere support of the signatories... If it is politically aggrandizing, then the text doesn't matter too much.
- TrevorJ 4y ago
  matters a lot if they accidentally pass the thing.
  - monetus 4y ago
    Absolutely, and there is too much horrifying probability behind that. Procedural reform to where that kind of thing isn't as likely or possible would be nice. I've chuckled a few times wondering how well they would all do if they had to use github issues.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 4y ago
We have to do this because the Chinese are authoritarian dictators who want to control and manipulate all sources of information.
tourgen 4y ago
I dunno. I was listening to a twitter space with a bunch of feds and they brought up an interesting topic. foreign nations are running _very real_ psychological operations on groups and individuals in the USA using modern internet communication and media technologies. Real evil stuff. People have died. People killed themselves, or are now homeless. not everyone you talk to on the internet is "just like me!" Some of them are weird foreign nationals and they want to extract useful info from you then wreck your life.
tiberious726 4y ago
If we assume that tiktok is a mass surveillance tool (which at least didn't use to controversial on this site) what alternatives really are there? Using a VPN isn't criminalized, using a VPN to bypass the provisions in the law is. Just look at vendors on Amazon to see how effective banning by name would be.
animitronix 4y ago
LOL ok, I'd like to see Uncle Sam try to stop my VPN usage
MrYellowP 4y ago
So many people here are incredibly naive. That's the real problem, more than anything else. Our governments are out to get us, not help us.

471 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

The bill's text has been available since (at least) March 23: https://web.archive.org/web/20230323142040/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://web.archive.org/web/20230323142040/https://www.congr... Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling?

jjcon 4y ago
[flagged]
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  Mmmm, I don't buy that. The EFF's old (March 16) take is also negative but more modest, but I am not sure if they had access to the full text: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/government-hasnt-justified-tiktok-ban https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/government-hasnt-justi...
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    To be fair, the presence of genuine criticism doesn't exclude the possibility of astroturfing. That's sort of the whole point of astroturfing, to attempt to blend in with the grassroots.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  This exactly is something that I fear...if state level actors had free access to our data and potentially a machine to shape public opinion, we can't expect them to give up at the first sign of resistance. The balance between privacy and security is hard, but it's also necessary here.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Are you now talking about the US politicians or the CCP ones?
    - jpgvm 4y ago
      I would hope both. Why do you think there was and remains so much pushback around GDPR. The attitude of Americans towards that legislation is telling.
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    You are free not to use TikTok, and free to remove the app from your child's phone (if you have kids), but don't use the Government to tell me I can't use TikTok. This is such hyped up nonsense. We live in such a clown world we are going to end up in a world war over a lip sync app.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      I'm also free not to smoke, but they still banned smoking and most indoor regions because it can be harm to other people. So can the widespread use of a propaganda platform like tick tock
- angio 4y ago
  Are you saying Joseph Cox from Vice has been paid to be critical of the act? EFF and ACLU also came out against this, have they been paid too?
  - jjcon 4y ago
    No, that isn't what astroturfing typically implies. Astroturfing is spreading FUD and misinformation in more automatable or massive ways, which in turn will cause articles to be written that echo these misinterpretations or misinformation. EFF and ACLU don't exactly have much credibility left in my book, but that is a personal opinion. EFF is still defending Internet Archive in the pirated books scheme. ACLU has retreated from the USA first amendment, which was their main organizational principle. Not exactly a moral high ground anymore. https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.... https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive
    - WillPostForFood 4y ago
      The FUD here is the overhyped risk of TikTok. Facebook didn't flip the election in 2016, and TikTok can't brainwash you in 2023. TikTok didn't read your mail, steal your bank account, listen to your calls. If it did, let's get Tim Cook to testify about exactly how it happened (it didn't happen).
      - dd36 4y ago
        Media can brain wash you…
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Everyone who thinks maybe it doesn't have real effects on society has missed to the last 10 or so years. Even if you aren't, you're some superhuman apparently, you live in a society with millions of people who will very much fall over and will very much end up opposing the future of your country. Look at healthy misinformation machines managed to turn the republicans from incredibly anti-Russia literally saying they are the biggest threat in the world a couple of election cycles ago, to the party with people calling for us to just hand Ukraine to them China was implicated not too long ago with meddling in Canada's elections. They are absolutely going to use this advantage on us.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  There is Astroturfing going on, but I don't know what direction it's going in. There's two separate bills going on[1], and it seems like the worst creatures in Washington are using TikTok as an excuse to severely expand the surveillance state in the bill that's getting all the press, under the guise of "banning TikTok". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363410
- camillomiller 4y ago
  You know what the supreme irony is? The China scare (“oh no, totalitarians are coming for us”) is pure manufacturing of consent and its goal is to pass bills that will REDUCE democracy in America.
  - computerfriend 4y ago
    Both can be true: the China scare is real and lawmakers are trying to pass democracy-eroding bills.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      It’s more of an excuse for the US lawmakers. There’s no need for new legislation to restrict trade with a foreign company.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 49531 4y ago
      Sure, but in my experience US lawmakers act much more hostile towards me as a US citizen than China ever has or will.
      - computerfriend 4y ago
        I'm not sure how that's related. For what it's worth, my experience has been the opposite.
        oska 4y ago
        Without wanting you to reveal personal details, care to tell us how ?
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    It's always projection with these people.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  Yep!
- eru 4y ago
  Where can I sign up to receive my pay? Alternatively, I'd be willing to shill for George Soros, too, if there's enough money in it.
throwaway4good 4y ago
You had the TikTok hearings which wasn’t a good look for US congress. Plus a few popular US politicians finally deciding against the bill.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  That hearing with the CEO wasn't a good look for TikTok, either. I especially liked the part where he said his kids don't use it. And "Project Texas" sounds like something Jìan-Yáng would come up with in Silicon Valley.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling? Media circus. The obvious endgame isn’t banning, it’s divestment. This happens all the time with critical infrastructure. We’re getting full-press coverage because it’s a social media asset and China fears are a bipartisan winner. To the extent this isn’t purely messaging, it would involve a strengthened Cfius. Not the power to randomly ban, but to ban acquisition and investment. (Even this draft bill targets transactions.)
dhc02 4y ago
I'm sorry, but your question is why it took 6 whole days?
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  Yeah, pretty much. That came off as more accusatory than I intended. I am not implying a conspiracy/skepticism, but I really thought VICE (for instance) would pick this up before 6 days.
  - anonGone73 4y ago
    It was on TikTok 6 Days ago...
    - brucethemoose2 4y ago
      But not the HN front page, not like this. I guess HN is realtively "slow" news now?
hammock 4y ago
>Why does it seem like the snowball has only just started rolling? Maybe because you mostly read mainstream media. I saw this being talked about in corners of Twitter, Telegram, Truth Social etc the day it was dropped
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  Thats a fair point. Its more of a time issue for me. I have cut out Discord, forums, twitter, telegram and such because they suck so much time, and I think I can manage HN.
  - hammock 4y ago
    Totally fair. Don’t think I was being critical. We’re probably better off without all the noise (from any source)

hunglee2 4y ago

authoritarianism always arrives with the same rhetoric of needing to 'protect the people'

Y_Y 4y ago
"Won't somebody _please_ think of the children?"
- lynx23 4y ago
  That is exactly how you weaponize women and family-centric males. Use the big-eyes-trigger and you are set to go.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    One doesn't have to be family-centric or female to care about children. This sounds like you consider the aforementioned groups easily manipulated. Not sure if I'm understanding your intended meaning correctly.
    - lynx23 4y ago
      Yes, I totally consider the mentioned groups easily manipulated... Not a surprise, given that there is actually hormonal-bonding between parents and their kids. Why do you think they are not special in this regard?
marginalia_nu 4y ago
Does it though? I can think of several instances where it's arrived with calls of ousting a corrupt government. Military coups are invariably authoritarian and often motivated this way.
gdy 4y ago
Yeah, the law sounds similar to what we've got in Russia. Don't go this road, guys. Update: Read the article a bit further and it says they could criminalize the use of VPN. Even here in Russia we don't have this. At least for now)

throwntoday 4y ago

I think at some point I'll just stop using the internet. Maybe being a luddite isn't so bad.

lynx23 4y ago
I already consciously decided to ignore Instragram, TikTok and Mutter. I will be a happy tmux user still while the young are already immersed in nausea-provoking VR and AR experiences. Looking forward to being happy by not joingin the crowd.

nikanj 4y ago

Isn't this just an US social media protection act? Meta is getting their asses handed to them by TikTok, so they do the obvious and lobby for banning of the competition

jpgvm 4y ago
Huawei 2.0. We can't compete so we will just ban the competition. A story as old as American industry.
- edgineer 4y ago
  To be fair, China's bans on Google et al. make this somewhat retaliatory, not purely anticompetitive.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I don't think it's quite the same thing, is it? I mean, Google isn't banned, they just can't/won't fulfill all the demands by the CCP. The end result is the same, but it's the difference between "you're not allowed to open a bar" and "you're not allowed to open a bar without getting a license and obeying the laws". The problem with TikTok is that it seems to do nothing that domestic US companies don't do, so it's perfectly legal. Outlawing the problematic aspect of social media would essentially destroy Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and severely damage Youtube, so they need to make it a real ban on the company, not the company's practices.
    - htag 4y ago
      > Outlawing the problematic aspect of social media would essentially destroy Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and severely damage Youtube, so they need to make it a real ban on the company, not the company's practices. I wonder if we would be okay with removing algorithmic feeds/recommendations. Feeds must either be a chronological order of content or it must be a human editor selected assortment of content. Leave room for algorithmic spam/malware blocking. I honestly think that leaves Facebooks/Twitter/Reddit/Youtube in operation, although more layoffs might be required.

Mizoguchi 4y ago

It's a bill guys. It has technically 0% chance of becoming a law the way it is currently redacted.

kevingadd 4y ago
Bills get passed as drafted all the time, what are you talking about? Sure there are opportunities for amendment etc but it's not some sort of guarantee that it will be heavily revised.
- Mizoguchi 4y ago
  No they don't get passed all the time. Less than 5% and only after a long debate, many changes and amendments. This one in particular has no chance of becoming law the way is redacted, not even chance of reaching the Senate.

tm-guimaraes 4y ago

At the end of day, isn’t Free Software the solution? Every issue with power and control of all these big organizations steem from the fact that their software does not respect the 4 freedoms. The west very much likes “free” trade, but how can you have free trade between so many different regulations and so many power disparities? At least with Free Software, even if you don’t want to trust the entity you are dealing with, at least you can inspect, learn and adapt its software, so that people don’t have a big service disruption. Stallman was right.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> isn’t Free Software the solution In a vacuum. In practice, these platforms take massive resources to run and improve, and consumers won’t deal with the inconvenience of distributed systems.
- tm-guimaraes 4y ago
  The point is Free Software, not distributed systems. It can still be a centrilized service, and be Free Software at the same time.
est 4y ago
> isn’t Free Software the solution Free software doesn't lay cables under the Pacific ocean.
FredPret 4y ago
Platforms != software Platforms require wide, simultaneous participation by content producers and consumers, which requires popularity, which requires persistent marketing efforts, which requires a mountain of capital. Platforms are much more a business with a brand than it is software.
- tm-guimaraes 4y ago
  the issues are trust. not whether you can get users to produce content for it. edit: someone else mentioned distributed systems, again the point is not these became decentralized or federated or anything like it, the point is them being Free, as in you can see how things are done, it gets harder to perverse the trust. And lets say a bad platform from a foreign entity is shown to compromise your national security, there are multiple options besides just showing the issues, presenting solutions/patches to the problem that troubles your nation, and last case scenario, migration path to the citizens using that service to a in.country managed one. The last one was being tried, having Microsoft/Oracle managing TikTok in the states, would a situation like that become easier with time, had all these platforms been Free Software?

andrewstuart 4y ago

The correct way to position a ban on TikTok is by comparison with China's ban on USA websites. Something along the lines of "unless China gives reciprocal access to all the banned websites listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... then we cannot permit China to have access to US web audiences". It is unequal and unfair and anticompetitive for China to ban hundreds of US based websites and it simply cannot stand for China to have unfettered access to the US web audience. These are some of the websites banned in China: Google Facebook Twitte Instagram YouTube WhatsApp Dropbox The New York TimesThe Washington Post Bloomberg News ReutersThe Wall Street Journal BBC Wikipedia (English version) Twitch Vimeo SoundCloud WordPress.com Tumblr Flickr Medium The Guardian Le Monde Deutsche Welle Radio Free Asia Voice of America GitHub Slack Zoom LinkedIn Snapchat Pinterest Quora Netflix Hulu HBO Disney+ ESPN Microsoft Azure Apple iCloud Steam Reddit Imgur Dailymotion Archive.org Amnesty International Human Rights Watch Reporters Without Borders

throwaway4good 4y ago
US companies are allowed to operate social media services in China if they store data locally and follow Chinese law. Apple and Microsoft does this.
- jjcon 4y ago
  Not even close to accurate. Not at all. Wikimedia has been trying to get China to allow a stripped down version of wikipedia in china for close to a decade now. It would be hosted in china and stripped of all political content deemed inappropriate by the CCP, still no.
  - est 4y ago
    China does require physical servers in China to operate user-generated-content websites and need staff oncall to censor content 24x7. I don't think wikimedia can do any of that. Yes it's a stupid totalitarian law but there's that.
  - 4y ago

teekert 4y ago

I've been enjoying the occasional discussions about the Restrict Act on Coder Radio [0]. Like the EU's chat control it's an insane overreach. Both give powers to government that, when fully executed could and should lead to protests. [0] https://podverse.fm/podcast/ZXd_1Ojd9 https://podverse.fm/podcast/ZXd_1Ojd9

anonymousiam 4y ago

When both Tucker Carlson and AOC agree that the RESTRICT Act is a bad thing, people should take notice.

FpUser 4y ago
They also say that unobstructed daytime sky is blue.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  And yet Congress is not trying to pass a law that says it's yellow, so what is the relevance of your comment?
bioemerl 4y ago
Theyagree on stuff all the time, and 90% of the time when they both agree on something it's especially misinformed and especially populist.

Hnrobert42 4y ago

I wonder if China is behind the push against the RESTRICT act that we are seeing in. The media. I wonder if we would know.

angio 4y ago
Why would they when it validates their internet strategy? It just shows the CCP was 10 years ahead of the US when it comes to restricting what apps citizens can use (to "protect" them ofcourse).
- htag 4y ago
  If China benefits from TikTok then it's a fair question to ask if they are working to stop the ban of TikTok.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    What benefits China more: tiktok, or turning US into oppressive state that jails people for accessing internet wrongly?
  - angio 4y ago
    You're thinking short term. If the US bans tiktok, more countries will follow and american tech companies will have a hard time competing there. On these grounds chinese companies will be able to compete better because they're already used to running multiple versions of the same app targeted at different markets.
scotty79 4y ago
I think RESTRICT bill is fully in the interest of China to the point that it may have sponsored it covertly. It will basically change US into China 2.0 from the point of view of their citizens. It will crumble the facade freedoms that US was trying to put as an argument why two party system is any better than one party system.

jtaft 4y ago

Anyone have alternative arguments why TikTok is being banned? I heard arguments since TikTok doesn’t have public stock that wealthy individuals are losing out. Same with very liberal ideology is on TikTok, with is trying to be controlled.

ricardobeat 4y ago
As other social networks, it is a cesspool of hate and misinformation, damaging to mental health, and can be used to manipulate public opinion very effectively at scale.
- wincy 4y ago
  Then why only TikTok? It’s obviously protectionist nonsense for US social media companies.
  - shagie 4y ago
    TikTok was used by its parent company ByteDance to reveal location information in order to correlate the accounts of journalists and former employees. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-bytedance-workers-fired-data-access-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by... > TikTok has admitted that it used its own app to spy on reporters as part of an attempt to track down the journalists’ sources, according to an internal email. > The data was accessed by employees of ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company and was used to track the reporters’ physical movements. The company’s chief internal auditor Chris Lepitak, who led the team involved in the operation, has been fired, while his China-based manager Song Ye has resigned. > They looked at IP addresses of journalists who were using the TikTok app in an attempt to learn if they were in the same location as employees suspected of leaking confidential information. The effort, which targeted former BuzzFeed reporter Emily Baker-White and Financial Times reporter Cristina Criddle among other reporters, was unsuccessful, but resulted in at least four members of staff based in both the US and China improperly accessing the data, according to an email from ByteDance general counsel Erich Andersen. All four have been fired. Company officials said they were taking additional steps to protect user data. --- The corresponding part is that the CCP has a stake in ByteDance and control over a board seat. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-bytedance-golden-shares-chinese-government-communist-party-board-2023-3 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-b...

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> The bill only applies to technology linked to a “foreign adversary.” Those countries include China (as well as Hong Kong); Cuba; Iran; North Korea; Russia, and Venezuela. I don't see the problem. We already restrict trade or banking with these countries. Social media apps and software are products like any other.

pjc50 4y ago
> “foreign adversary.” Those countries include China This is a pretty massive policy shift, no? All the other countries are effectively at frozen-conflict or proxy war status with the US, and heavily sanctioned. Putting China on that list is a major step towards at least a Cold War with China, let alone a hot war. "You can no longer buy anything manufactured in China" would wreck the US economy in the medium term. It would also probably make the war over Taiwan inevitable.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Do Chinese state-backed cyber attacks count as a cold war?
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Nobody seems to really care about them, regardless of the source. The level I would regard as a cold war is the level I remember between the US and the USSR: almost no travel and trade. So long as there's two million containers per month arriving from China, there is no way you could describe the situation as a cold war. Just an exchange of stiffly worded letters.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  > Putting China on that list is a major step towards at least a Cold War with China, let alone a hot war. The only way to prevent war. America is the only thing standing between them and multiple wars in the South China Sea, and we must continue to be willing to support nations like Taiwan. Giving them access to widespread propaganda tools, dramatically produces a chances that we do when we need to.

kthejoker2 4y ago

[flagged]

beepbooptheory 4y ago
If you think either state cares enough about hn commenters to go through some process of surveillance or whatever, don't you think they'd just hire a real person to do the psyop? Like, this isn't a particularly huge social network, I don't see what benefit the automation would give you here. But then again.. The China-hawkness of this place is sometimes suspiciously a little strong. So you might have a point.
- tcgv 4y ago
  > If you think either state cares enough about hn commenters to go through some process of surveillance or whatever, don't you think they'd just hire a real person to do the psyop? I think it's fair to assume that they care and and that they have people on payroll for this purpose. HN would most likely be just another entry in their list of targeted boards/discussion sites. The effort to develop and operate a tool for this purpose is minimal. One person assisted with such automated tool would be able to monitor and interact with thousands, if not millions, of online discussions to spread their governement's views/propaganda/missinformation.
krisoft 4y ago
> Engaging one is the social media equivalent of stepping on a landmine Except you keep your legs and there is no chance of bleeding to death. So what is the danger you envision?
Aachen 4y ago
People built detectors for GPT texts. If you want to make such accusations, especially casting suspicion on a whole thread, you should back it up with that. Otherwise you're the equivalent of a foreign troll that seeks to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

segmondy 4y ago

COULD? WOULD. WILL.

sparc24 4y ago

If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be. . . . . Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. —C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

BoxOfRain 4y ago
That C.S. Lewis quote is among my favourites, he put a key pillar of my beliefs into words better than I ever could.
g9yuayon 4y ago
A key question is what emboldened the politicians to propose such bill? It seems the constituents of the law makers have been getting more and more complacent when it comes to giving the government unchecked power, as long as there is a "good" narrative.
- akomtu 4y ago
  Note that EU has made a similar power grab[1]. This means that whatever has emboldened the two is not nation-specific. Now compare this with the recent Schwab's rhetoric on WEF. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35345612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35345612

ourmandave 4y ago

Isn't this law making 101? Version 1.0 of a new bill gets passed and made law. And a flurry of lawsuits challenging various parts of it wind through the courts. Based on those rulings the law is either amended or repealed.

twawaaay 4y ago

I think what people are forgetting is that any law will most likely be tested in the future with intent to abuse it. People are still in a struggle over single words or even punctuation in the constitution written by people who had no idea there will be cars or Internet or CCTV cameras or abortion pills or AR-15s in the future. It is not about whether we want or don't want TikTok. It is obviously bad and there is absolutely no good coming out of it. But it is about what other consequences the law will have. Any law needs to be written thoughtfully and based on principles. Only principles have even a chance to stand the test of time.

hackernewds 4y ago
> It is obviously bad and there is absolutely no good coming out of it. arguably untrue. easy to list reasons, however the indomitable one is the breadth of its usage within a free market already qualifies its utility for the masses.
- 1MachineElf 4y ago
  You could make a similar argument about Opium in 19th century China, or Fentanyl in present-day US.
  - eru 4y ago
    Why not about opium in the present-day US? Criminalizing drugs drives producers and users to more potent and compact forms, like opium gave way to heroin which gave way to fentanyl. (Very simplified.) Opium is bulky. When the US outlawed alcohol for a while, the market also switched from relatively bulky beer to harder spirits. --- Aside from that, opium and fentanyl etc obviously have some good aspects, otherwise people wouldn't take them. Duh. That doesn't mean that the good aspects outweigh the bad aspects in someone else's opinion.

Eumenes 4y ago

The bill is evil, no doubt, but I can't help but think this crap already exists. Our ISPs and internet infrastructure are essentially nationalized for the purpose of spying/information collection. We found this out with Snowden/NSA. Our corrupt intelligence agencies can get any information they want. This just provides the legal backing, more or less retrofitting things. It makes me wonder if this is in preparation for a larger conflict with Russia or other enemies. US needs control of the propaganda mechanism, needs support of the people. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, we just write covert complicated laws now, with bi-partisan support, because both sides get their money from the same people.

unethical_ban 4y ago
It does not already exist that interesting with an adversary country site is punishable by prison time. Forget spring, this is active policing.

hereme888 4y ago

If they do try to ban VPNs, it will be just like when they tried to block people from using encryption decades ago. People will do it, they won't be able to enforce it, and the people will win. There's too many VPN users these days for government to stop. Government is not "all powerful".

krolden 4y ago
Thats not the intent here. The only reason for this wording is so if they do happen to catch you for something else, even unrelated, they'll be able yo tack on extra charges after they discover you were using a vpn. Also if they suspect you of using a vpn, they could get a warrant based on that alone.
btbuildem 4y ago
We use corporate VPNs for daily work ffs

user3939382 4y ago

Unfortunately when it comes to government abuse vs the People, we're like 0-10 at this point. We know the playbook: roll these ridiculous bills out, spark outrage, shift the Overton Window, either kill the bill or amend it, and in 12-36 months roll it out again until the corrupt politicians and the security state behind this stuff win by attrition. We lost fucking habeus corpus with the NDAA that gets renewed every year! How are we doing with the Patriot Act? Is James Clapper in prison yet? Assange is. It never ends.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
KerrAvon 4y ago
Well, it's good that Assange is in prison. His contributions have made all of this so much worse.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  How so? I don't follow the logic here. Do you also think that about Snowden? Pre-2013, technologists would laugh at anyone suggesting the NSA was spying on US citizens. There were tinfoil hat jokes and everything. Snowden showed it was not only happening, but was commonplace and operating on a massive scale. Assange, like Snowden, revealed all sorts of government and military corruption which was directly enabled by things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA. So how did "his actions" make their effects "so much worse?"

monetus 4y ago

This is a messaging bill - a bill designed to tell something to a constituency, rather than to become law. - It is jockeying to cultivate influence. The idiocy contained within the bill itself probably doesn't even have the sincere support of the signatories... If it is politically aggrandizing, then the text doesn't matter too much.

TrevorJ 4y ago
matters a lot if they accidentally pass the thing.
- monetus 4y ago
  Absolutely, and there is too much horrifying probability behind that. Procedural reform to where that kind of thing isn't as likely or possible would be nice. I've chuckled a few times wondering how well they would all do if they had to use github issues.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 4y ago

We have to do this because the Chinese are authoritarian dictators who want to control and manipulate all sources of information.

tourgen 4y ago

I dunno. I was listening to a twitter space with a bunch of feds and they brought up an interesting topic. foreign nations are running _very real_ psychological operations on groups and individuals in the USA using modern internet communication and media technologies. Real evil stuff. People have died. People killed themselves, or are now homeless. not everyone you talk to on the internet is "just like me!" Some of them are weird foreign nationals and they want to extract useful info from you then wreck your life.

tiberious726 4y ago

If we assume that tiktok is a mass surveillance tool (which at least didn't use to controversial on this site) what alternatives really are there? Using a VPN isn't criminalized, using a VPN to bypass the provisions in the law is. Just look at vendors on Amazon to see how effective banning by name would be.

animitronix 4y ago

LOL ok, I'd like to see Uncle Sam try to stop my VPN usage

MrYellowP 4y ago

So many people here are incredibly naive. That's the real problem, more than anything else. Our governments are out to get us, not help us.