5 ms·

The arguments I can think of for why you wouldn't support restricting social media owned by foreign adversaries: * You don't believe social media companies can

The arguments I can think of for why you wouldn't support restricting social media owned by foreign adversaries: * You don't believe social media companies can become literal or de facto extensions of the countries they are located in. * You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. * You believe the above, but don't think that it amounts to a serious risk, even theoretically. * You don't care about any of that, you just like the product. * You don't care about any of that, you oppose the bill on ideological grounds other than the legislative scope, or civil liberties issues. For example (but not limited to) purely partisan reasons. * You have issues with the specific provisions or wording of this bill, which override your general agreement that something like it may be legitimate and desirable. Am I missing any? None are convincing me, personally, except maybe the last one, and I am guessing most people who oppose it have not done a line-by-line parsing of the text of the bill either.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 3y ago
> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on free speech. You aren't allowed to freely slander people, to engage in false advertising, to commit fraud, treason, etc. But a new law that specifically prevents a company from showing you a selection of videos on fears that this selection might be biased in a way that influences people is another level. It not only prevents them from speaking directly, it specifically bans them because of how they might choose which legal speech they might show you. I completely understand why people want to do it. Allowing foreign adversaries this much influence is dangerous. But it is also unprecedented, and because of the indirection feels like a heavier restriction than say banning a Chinese newspaper from publishing in the US.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I don't know whether the first amendment is meant to stop this kind of regulation, but I suppose that's one the courts have either settled already, or will get a chance to settle. I would guess that a foreign company's right to either operate a business in the U.S., or service U.S. citizens from a foreign country, is treated differently when it comes to first amendment protections compared to say a domestic business or a private citizen shouting on a street corner.
  - aprilthird2021 3y ago
    Lamont v Postmaster General will likely come up if this bill passes. It concerned Americans receiving foreign propaganda in the mail and the Postal Service attempting to stop this distribution.
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      That case found that you couldn't make a U.S. Person opt-in to receiving foreign propaganda, and for fairly obvious reasons I think. This case wouldn't have that problem.
      - aprilthird2021 3y ago
        Why would it not? It's regulating the flow of protected speech materials, exactly the same as in the precedent case...
        cryptonector 3y ago
        In the precedent the U.S. government was clearly trying to find the names of Americans interested in foreign propaganda. Here the U.S. government is trying to stop ownership by foreign adversaries of social media operating in the U.S. That's clearly a significant distinction.
        3y ago
qixxiq 3y ago
I think there's one extension, although you _kind of_ covered it with "you just like the product" Some people are addicted to the product. It's not even that they like it any more, and they can see the harm it causes, but they also can't imagine their lives without it. I think it's a vital move by the government, but I also think it's too late.
- jimkleiber 3y ago
  Yeah, taking away someone's drug right before they're supposed to vote on whether they like you is not a good way to get people to like you. I think the timing of this is really dangerous for democracy in the US. It may spur a fury and sense of betrayal in a lot of people, meaning they either don't vote, or they vote for the guy who makes a living on telling them the world is out to get them and no one cares about them.
Miner49er 3y ago
Yeah, you're missing that it's most likely unconstitutional, because it violates the First amendment. Also related, but somewhat separate, is just that people should have freedom to information.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  That's not clear. Does the First Amendment protect non-U.S. persons' right to speak and publish?
  - Miner49er 3y ago
    No, but it protects Americans' right to receive speech. Americans have a right to hear the speech that is on Tik Tok.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - Leary 3y ago
    The First Amendment does not directly protect the speech of non-US persons outside of US territory. However, US courts have held that the First Amendment can limit the US government's ability to restrict the speech of non-US persons abroad if that speech is directed at or received by people in the US.
iza 3y ago
* You don't believe China should be an "adversary"
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I tried to keep my description vague and not specific to China. I agree that it's relevant whether China is or is not an adversary, and that China is the obvious proximate target of this legislation. Is your point to say that you specifically don't believe China is an adversary, thus the bill is off the mark? I could read your item as saying either that, or this: in order to promote better relations between adversarial nations, bills restricting the ability of one nation to operate in another are indefensible. In other words, to make sure China is not an adversary, TikTok should not be banned.
  - neetdeth 3y ago
    Let’s all keep in mind that “adversaries” are just regular countries that some people in government have decided are a competitive threat or strategic obstacle. This is, frankly, bullshit. If you want to declare a country an enemy of the United States and cut off my ability to access information from that country, you should have the fortitude to declare war. Otherwise I’m not interested in the opinion of some bureaucrat at State, thank you very much.
aprilthird2021 3y ago
I don't think the government should be like China and ban me from seeing content in social media spheres it doesn't like.
corimaith 3y ago
I would imagine there is a fair portion of those opposing it here who don't have the US' best interests in mind.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  How is upholding the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution not having the US best interests in mind? This is so PATRIOT ACT 2.0
justnotworthit 3y ago
> * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Another way to word that is: You don't believe that the millions of people voluntary using the app are useful idiots who need to protected from themselves via government force. More likely is that the government has deemed the platform uncontrollable/uncensorable because of its foreign ownership.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wongarsu 3y ago

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on free speech. You aren't allowed to freely slander people, to engage in false advertising, to commit fraud, treason, etc. But a new law that specifically prevents a company from showing you a selection of videos on fears that this selection might be biased in a way that influences people is another level. It not only prevents them from speaking directly, it specifically bans them because of how they might choose which legal speech they might show you. I completely understand why people want to do it. Allowing foreign adversaries this much influence is dangerous. But it is also unprecedented, and because of the indirection feels like a heavier restriction than say banning a Chinese newspaper from publishing in the US.

karaterobot 3y ago
I don't know whether the first amendment is meant to stop this kind of regulation, but I suppose that's one the courts have either settled already, or will get a chance to settle. I would guess that a foreign company's right to either operate a business in the U.S., or service U.S. citizens from a foreign country, is treated differently when it comes to first amendment protections compared to say a domestic business or a private citizen shouting on a street corner.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  Lamont v Postmaster General will likely come up if this bill passes. It concerned Americans receiving foreign propaganda in the mail and the Postal Service attempting to stop this distribution.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    That case found that you couldn't make a U.S. Person opt-in to receiving foreign propaganda, and for fairly obvious reasons I think. This case wouldn't have that problem.
    - aprilthird2021 3y ago
      Why would it not? It's regulating the flow of protected speech materials, exactly the same as in the precedent case...
      - cryptonector 3y ago
        In the precedent the U.S. government was clearly trying to find the names of Americans interested in foreign propaganda. Here the U.S. government is trying to stop ownership by foreign adversaries of social media operating in the U.S. That's clearly a significant distinction.
        3y ago

qixxiq 3y ago

I think there's one extension, although you _kind of_ covered it with "you just like the product" Some people are addicted to the product. It's not even that they like it any more, and they can see the harm it causes, but they also can't imagine their lives without it. I think it's a vital move by the government, but I also think it's too late.

jimkleiber 3y ago
Yeah, taking away someone's drug right before they're supposed to vote on whether they like you is not a good way to get people to like you. I think the timing of this is really dangerous for democracy in the US. It may spur a fury and sense of betrayal in a lot of people, meaning they either don't vote, or they vote for the guy who makes a living on telling them the world is out to get them and no one cares about them.

Miner49er 3y ago

Yeah, you're missing that it's most likely unconstitutional, because it violates the First amendment. Also related, but somewhat separate, is just that people should have freedom to information.

cryptonector 3y ago
That's not clear. Does the First Amendment protect non-U.S. persons' right to speak and publish?
- Miner49er 3y ago
  No, but it protects Americans' right to receive speech. Americans have a right to hear the speech that is on Tik Tok.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Leary 3y ago
  The First Amendment does not directly protect the speech of non-US persons outside of US territory. However, US courts have held that the First Amendment can limit the US government's ability to restrict the speech of non-US persons abroad if that speech is directed at or received by people in the US.

iza 3y ago

* You don't believe China should be an "adversary"

karaterobot 3y ago
I tried to keep my description vague and not specific to China. I agree that it's relevant whether China is or is not an adversary, and that China is the obvious proximate target of this legislation. Is your point to say that you specifically don't believe China is an adversary, thus the bill is off the mark? I could read your item as saying either that, or this: in order to promote better relations between adversarial nations, bills restricting the ability of one nation to operate in another are indefensible. In other words, to make sure China is not an adversary, TikTok should not be banned.
- neetdeth 3y ago
  Let’s all keep in mind that “adversaries” are just regular countries that some people in government have decided are a competitive threat or strategic obstacle. This is, frankly, bullshit. If you want to declare a country an enemy of the United States and cut off my ability to access information from that country, you should have the fortitude to declare war. Otherwise I’m not interested in the opinion of some bureaucrat at State, thank you very much.

aprilthird2021 3y ago

I don't think the government should be like China and ban me from seeing content in social media spheres it doesn't like.

corimaith 3y ago

I would imagine there is a fair portion of those opposing it here who don't have the US' best interests in mind.

aprilthird2021 3y ago
How is upholding the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution not having the US best interests in mind? This is so PATRIOT ACT 2.0

justnotworthit 3y ago

> * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Another way to word that is: You don't believe that the millions of people voluntary using the app are useful idiots who need to protected from themselves via government force. More likely is that the government has deemed the platform uncontrollable/uncensorable because of its foreign ownership.