7 ms·

So what if China blocks apps. Our freedoms are what make us different from them and the first amendment is the most important of those freedoms. If US persons

So what if China blocks apps. Our freedoms are what make us different from them and the first amendment is the most important of those freedoms. If US persons are truly helping TikTok engage in espionage then arrest them, it’s already illegal.

worrycue 4y ago
> Our freedoms are what make us different from them Don't the US gov already have the power to arbitrarily sanction and restrict trade with foreign countries? e.g. You cannot sell to nor buy from people in North Korea. Banning all social media platforms from China seem like a vary minor extension of that power.
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  Many people already think that power is mis-used and/or abused and would want to see it pared back rather than extended, myself included.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    There's an argument that foreign policy should override domestic politics when dealing with adversarial powers we elect our officials to stand up against. It's not a popular view, because few Americans pay attention to or care about foreign affairs. Under the condition where a foreign power has broadly infiltrated our social systems with a Trojan horse, I think there are rational ways to preserve the First Amendment while targeting the offending social/information virus. This law isn't that, but it probably won't pass and large parts of it would definitely would be struck down by the courts if it did. Whatever "many people already think," though, it's the responsibility of our government to defend the country from adversaries. That should be done in a way thay doesn't undermine the rights of Americans... but it has to be done or those rights would cease to exist. TikTok harvesting data and manipulating opinion from a foreign throne is incompatible with having a populace free and unencumbered to make wise and rational decisions to self-govern. Without which all other speech disappears.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Controlling information, speech, access to knowledge is much different than banning the import of North Korean beanie baby knock offs.
  - maxsilver 4y ago
    That's a weird line to draw though. That stance is basically saying physical products are OK to sanction, but digital products aren't. (Genshin Impact is a lot closer to Beanie Babies than most people would care to admit) And it's doubly-ironic because TikTok isn't getting banned because of Chinese messaging (that's already allowed everywhere, in all mediums). TikTok is under ban-threat in the US because Americans are using it for American messaging. It's not meaningfully different than say, Turkey banning Twitter back in 2014 and such.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Except controlling communications, thought, and expression is different. The medium isn’t important. It’s what is being controlled. I agree, it’s not different than an oppressive regime controlling means of communication. It’s in fact precisely the same.
      - ROTMetro 4y ago
        The medium is important if it is artificially inserting itself to push narratives directed for malicious intent. They aren't banning phone calls from China, or preventing Chinese citizens from posting on American websites. They are banning a specific filter.
        fnordpiglet 4y ago
        What filter is that? What they are doing is establishing the platform for a great firewall of America. What’s the difference between this and oppressive regimes blocking western sites? Who decides what’s next? You’re honestly comfortable with filtering the internet? I think TikTok users would disagree it’s equivalent to making a phone call, or other sites. It has a specific form that fosters their desired mode of communication. I’ve not seen a specific criminal charge leveled against TikTok, so I assume they’re not doing anything illegal. So, I don’t see how this isn’t suppressing the communications of TikTok users based only on the nationality of their parent company. If they did something illegal, then use the justice system to get redress. Use existing regulatory bodies. Etc. I don’t see the need for a broad based framework for censorship. Even if you won’t agree that this isn’t that this time, it’s most certainly the foundation for it next time. Once you give up freedom of expression on the internet for any reason, you give it up for all reasons.
raverbashing 4y ago
Freedom is merited to those who play "by the rules" There's a line between extending freedom to parties that don't play fair and being a chump
- newjersey 4y ago
  Exactly. For example, imagine if Texas decided it would no longer allow people who have out of state driver’s licenses to drive in the state. All the other states will quickly ban Texas drivers from driving in their states as well. And we are the same country. In fact, I’d say a ban is at least a decade overdue and our Congress is to blame as usual. Edit: I mean a ban on social media networks controlled by China PR, not a ban on Texas drivers!
  - imwithstoopid 4y ago
    bzzzt look at concealed carry reciprocity, there is no precedent in the US for laws in one state to impact another, and in fact this is a cornerstone of Federalism
    - checkyoursudo 4y ago
      I am sorry, but this is written into the Constitution of the United States of America: Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-1/overview-of-the-full-faith-and-credit-clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec... It is not even an amendment. It was there from the start. Tons of laws from the different states affect each other.
      - imwithstoopid 4y ago
        ...only when Federal law overrides State law (this should be obvious) so in my example, there is no Federal carry reciprocity law, so states can clobber each other at will likewise, there is no Federal Drivers License, so you get some states that share license info with each other, some that don't...and they aren't compelled
kansface 4y ago
This isn’t just about speech. It’s about access to markets, stealing technology/IP as a matter of public policy, and Chinese companies functioning as de facto branches of the CCP. If US social media companies are banned there, their companies should be banned here, etc.

worrycue 4y ago

> Our freedoms are what make us different from them Don't the US gov already have the power to arbitrarily sanction and restrict trade with foreign countries? e.g. You cannot sell to nor buy from people in North Korea. Banning all social media platforms from China seem like a vary minor extension of that power.

anoonmoose 4y ago
Many people already think that power is mis-used and/or abused and would want to see it pared back rather than extended, myself included.
- noduerme 4y ago
  There's an argument that foreign policy should override domestic politics when dealing with adversarial powers we elect our officials to stand up against. It's not a popular view, because few Americans pay attention to or care about foreign affairs. Under the condition where a foreign power has broadly infiltrated our social systems with a Trojan horse, I think there are rational ways to preserve the First Amendment while targeting the offending social/information virus. This law isn't that, but it probably won't pass and large parts of it would definitely would be struck down by the courts if it did. Whatever "many people already think," though, it's the responsibility of our government to defend the country from adversaries. That should be done in a way thay doesn't undermine the rights of Americans... but it has to be done or those rights would cease to exist. TikTok harvesting data and manipulating opinion from a foreign throne is incompatible with having a populace free and unencumbered to make wise and rational decisions to self-govern. Without which all other speech disappears.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Controlling information, speech, access to knowledge is much different than banning the import of North Korean beanie baby knock offs.
- maxsilver 4y ago
  That's a weird line to draw though. That stance is basically saying physical products are OK to sanction, but digital products aren't. (Genshin Impact is a lot closer to Beanie Babies than most people would care to admit) And it's doubly-ironic because TikTok isn't getting banned because of Chinese messaging (that's already allowed everywhere, in all mediums). TikTok is under ban-threat in the US because Americans are using it for American messaging. It's not meaningfully different than say, Turkey banning Twitter back in 2014 and such.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Except controlling communications, thought, and expression is different. The medium isn’t important. It’s what is being controlled. I agree, it’s not different than an oppressive regime controlling means of communication. It’s in fact precisely the same.
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      The medium is important if it is artificially inserting itself to push narratives directed for malicious intent. They aren't banning phone calls from China, or preventing Chinese citizens from posting on American websites. They are banning a specific filter.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        What filter is that? What they are doing is establishing the platform for a great firewall of America. What’s the difference between this and oppressive regimes blocking western sites? Who decides what’s next? You’re honestly comfortable with filtering the internet? I think TikTok users would disagree it’s equivalent to making a phone call, or other sites. It has a specific form that fosters their desired mode of communication. I’ve not seen a specific criminal charge leveled against TikTok, so I assume they’re not doing anything illegal. So, I don’t see how this isn’t suppressing the communications of TikTok users based only on the nationality of their parent company. If they did something illegal, then use the justice system to get redress. Use existing regulatory bodies. Etc. I don’t see the need for a broad based framework for censorship. Even if you won’t agree that this isn’t that this time, it’s most certainly the foundation for it next time. Once you give up freedom of expression on the internet for any reason, you give it up for all reasons.

raverbashing 4y ago

Freedom is merited to those who play "by the rules" There's a line between extending freedom to parties that don't play fair and being a chump

newjersey 4y ago
Exactly. For example, imagine if Texas decided it would no longer allow people who have out of state driver’s licenses to drive in the state. All the other states will quickly ban Texas drivers from driving in their states as well. And we are the same country. In fact, I’d say a ban is at least a decade overdue and our Congress is to blame as usual. Edit: I mean a ban on social media networks controlled by China PR, not a ban on Texas drivers!
- imwithstoopid 4y ago
  bzzzt look at concealed carry reciprocity, there is no precedent in the US for laws in one state to impact another, and in fact this is a cornerstone of Federalism
  - checkyoursudo 4y ago
    I am sorry, but this is written into the Constitution of the United States of America: Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-1/overview-of-the-full-faith-and-credit-clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec... It is not even an amendment. It was there from the start. Tons of laws from the different states affect each other.
    - imwithstoopid 4y ago
      ...only when Federal law overrides State law (this should be obvious) so in my example, there is no Federal carry reciprocity law, so states can clobber each other at will likewise, there is no Federal Drivers License, so you get some states that share license info with each other, some that don't...and they aren't compelled

kansface 4y ago

This isn’t just about speech. It’s about access to markets, stealing technology/IP as a matter of public policy, and Chinese companies functioning as de facto branches of the CCP. If US social media companies are banned there, their companies should be banned here, etc.