4 ms·

As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still fre

As other commenters have said, the GP's argument is not about free speech but about trade. Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. If someone makes a video of a TikTok video and shares it on Youtube/Whatsapp, that's legal. The actual content is legal, so it's not a free speech/censorship issue. This is the equivalent of "We've put sanctions on China. You can write whatever you want, as long as you don't do it using Chinese pens and Chinese paper" It's not at all unusual for countries (including the US) to restrict commerce with a country if they believe the other country isn't engaging in fair commerce.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
codedokode 3y ago
Except this is not about commerce. US wants to ban TikTok for the same reason Russia has blocked BBC. Russia believes that information from BBC can harmfully influence people's mind.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  I think it's more about Chinese harvesting data.
- sparks1970 3y ago
  Funny, Telegraph readers also seem to believe that the BBC can harmfully influence people's minds.
- dartharva 3y ago
  I hope you are aware that Tiktok doesn't generate content by itself? A comparison with BBC is stupid.
Miner49er 3y ago
> Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. Yes, it does impinge free speech. It's not about being able to say things, it's about freedom to hear speech. The first amendment and freedom of speech also covers that, and there is speech on Tik Tok that is not available elsewhere.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  As I said, they are not banning listening to the speech on Tik Tok videos. If someone makes a mirror of all TikTok videos and posts it on Peertube, it is totally fine to listen to it. They are banning one delivery mechanism. Not the content.
  - Miner49er 3y ago
    I don't think courts will see it that way, but if the ban happens I guess we'll see.
  - aprilthird2021 3y ago
    By this logic, when Howl was banned from publication, you could argue it wasn't a problem. If Ginsberg performed Howl in public it would be fine. They were just banning one delivery mechanism, his press
pksebben 3y ago
What I find troubling about this is the delta between the vox populi and the decision made. Whether it's right or prudent or whatever, if you figure that people using the service don't want it shut down (~170M or roughly half of the population) then what's happening here is that our "representatives" are doing what they always do and totally ignoring their constituency. Mind you, this isn't surprising in the least, but perhaps it's a good moment to step back and reflect a little on this snag in our governance.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  Representatives are elected to do "what's right". If their constituents don't like it, they can elect them out.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck...
    - BeetleB 3y ago
      > Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck... A sign that the constituents don't care about a given issue the way you do.
      - pksebben 3y ago
        That's a gross oversimplification, and I think you know it. We're not idiots here. On any given year in the last decade, about 1/3 (sometimes more, sometimes less) of voters have been registered independent. George Washington was the last independent president. We take for granted that campaign promises are there to be reneged on. Even assuming legitimate alignment with a given candidate (that is, that they are genuine about representing you), this more or less means you're not getting what's on the label. It's well known that unless you live in one of like 6 states your vote won't affect the outcome of a presidential race. Those states tend to have lower populations. The system is broken, and it has been for a long time. The number of things that get between your vote and the implementation of policy are enough to ensure that your voice is unimportant - whether this is by accident or design is another conversation but I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument that what we have is even remotely functional. I'm open to hearing one if you have it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

codedokode 3y ago

Except this is not about commerce. US wants to ban TikTok for the same reason Russia has blocked BBC. Russia believes that information from BBC can harmfully influence people's mind.

BeetleB 3y ago
I think it's more about Chinese harvesting data.
sparks1970 3y ago
Funny, Telegraph readers also seem to believe that the BBC can harmfully influence people's minds.
dartharva 3y ago
I hope you are aware that Tiktok doesn't generate content by itself? A comparison with BBC is stupid.

Miner49er 3y ago

> Banning TikTok is not impinging on free speech. People are still free to say whatever they want on so many (unrestricted) platforms. Yes, it does impinge free speech. It's not about being able to say things, it's about freedom to hear speech. The first amendment and freedom of speech also covers that, and there is speech on Tik Tok that is not available elsewhere.

BeetleB 3y ago
As I said, they are not banning listening to the speech on Tik Tok videos. If someone makes a mirror of all TikTok videos and posts it on Peertube, it is totally fine to listen to it. They are banning one delivery mechanism. Not the content.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  I don't think courts will see it that way, but if the ban happens I guess we'll see.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  By this logic, when Howl was banned from publication, you could argue it wasn't a problem. If Ginsberg performed Howl in public it would be fine. They were just banning one delivery mechanism, his press

pksebben 3y ago

What I find troubling about this is the delta between the vox populi and the decision made. Whether it's right or prudent or whatever, if you figure that people using the service don't want it shut down (~170M or roughly half of the population) then what's happening here is that our "representatives" are doing what they always do and totally ignoring their constituency. Mind you, this isn't surprising in the least, but perhaps it's a good moment to step back and reflect a little on this snag in our governance.

BeetleB 3y ago
Representatives are elected to do "what's right". If their constituents don't like it, they can elect them out.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck...
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    > Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck... A sign that the constituents don't care about a given issue the way you do.
    - pksebben 3y ago
      That's a gross oversimplification, and I think you know it. We're not idiots here. On any given year in the last decade, about 1/3 (sometimes more, sometimes less) of voters have been registered independent. George Washington was the last independent president. We take for granted that campaign promises are there to be reneged on. Even assuming legitimate alignment with a given candidate (that is, that they are genuine about representing you), this more or less means you're not getting what's on the label. It's well known that unless you live in one of like 6 states your vote won't affect the outcome of a presidential race. Those states tend to have lower populations. The system is broken, and it has been for a long time. The number of things that get between your vote and the implementation of policy are enough to ensure that your voice is unimportant - whether this is by accident or design is another conversation but I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument that what we have is even remotely functional. I'm open to hearing one if you have it.