4 ms·

US freedom applies only to citizens and residents and not foreign govts.

motoxpro 3y ago
Totally. This is the main thing agaisnt the free speech argument. We have also passed this same law in radio and TV. It's about influence at a mass scale more than anything. I don't know why we would want a foreign ADVERSARY to have free reign.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  This framing is all backwards. Americans go to TikTok for content of their own free will. This law effectively prevents Americans from using an information service they prefer. Unless, of course, you want to admit that social media applications, through some combination of peer pressure, advertising, propaganda, manipulation, and deception subvert the free will of some portion of their users. In which case naturally they ought to be regulated in order to protect your citizens. Except... then the regulation drafted reads as "only American companies are allowed to subvert the free will of Americans", which comes off as pretty sinister.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    > Except... then the regulation drafted reads as "only American companies are allowed to subvert the free will of Americans", which comes off as pretty sinister. Sinister or not this framing makes a lot more sense than the alternative if you write it like this: “Only companies [beholden to American interests] are allowed to [influence] Americans”. The core premise is really rather dull. If the company poses a risk to Americans, then it should exist fully within reach of the US Gov regulations and completely out of the control of adversaries.
  - motoxpro 3y ago
    You’re talking one level too low in the process. I’m not arguing if a us citizen should be allowed to use a property controlled by foreign adversary. I’m arguing should a foreign adversary be able to control such a large US property in the first place? In my opinion, having a direct line to > 100 million people where they can send push notifications that tell people to contact their government for a specific purpose is not so great. That’s leaving out the more subtle untraceable black box of deranking things their government doesn’t like.
Miner49er 3y ago
Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want, including whatever is on Tik Tok. This is covered by the first amendment.
- xdennis 3y ago
  It's not the information that's banned, it's TikTok. People don't seek to ban TikTok because they fear the content, they fear the power that an enemy nation has over their citizens. It's not a free speech issue. Imagine if a company developed a new form of paper and published many books on it. If the paper turns out to be toxic and is banned, the company can't then say "oh, no, we're being censured". It has nothing to do with the message.
  - Miner49er 3y ago
    The courts can look at the effect of the ban, not just the intention. If the effect is that it ends up limiting Americans' access to information (which it would, unless ByteDance gave in and sold) then a court could find it unconstitutional. IANAL, but this is my understanding. Same holds true of your 2nd example, if it required Americans to turn in all the books they owned printed on that paper, for example.
    - eppp 3y ago
      Where on earth does it say that the government cannot limit access to information? If that were true then how on earth is book censorship legal? For that matter, how was it legal to change to digital tv broadcasts? CCP tiktok can absolutely still operate a website that wont be blocked. The medium of delivery isnt protected speech.
    - chii 3y ago
      > it ends up limiting Americans' access to information it is not a right to have unlimited access to any and all information. It is only a constitutional violation (by the gov't) to _prevent_ an american citizen from any speech. It would not be a violation to legislatively ban a company, unless that company was the only place you could make speeches, and thus resulting in the outcome where there's defacto speech repression. However, such a company ban, if it werent due a violation, would erode the trust in the US financial system. Because if the US decides they can just divest you without you violating any current known laws, it will make foreign investment in the US more difficult.
layer8 3y ago
That’s part of what is being criticized. Human rights are supposed to be universal, and some countries actually handle them like that, applying them to citizens and foreigners alike.
- harkinian 3y ago
  Which country gives the rest of the world the same rights as its citizens?
- sophacles 3y ago
  What human right is being violated? This is about what types of business are allowed to domestic and foreign entities. I've never heard anyone declare "its a basic human right for institutions designed to do business behind a liability shield to do as they please anywhere and any time".
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Human rights are just made up. It means nothing to talk about them. You can scream in a desert that water is a human right as much as you want, doesn't mean it is going to rain.
  - butlike 3y ago
    Out of touch comment. It's nice to know that sometimes, there's a mutual understanding that people are people.
    - IncreasePosts 3y ago
      Of course people are people. The person I was responding to misunderstood the US constitution as a list of human rights, as well as the enforcing mechanism for the US constitution, and who it applies to.

Totally. This is the main thing agaisnt the free speech argument. We have also passed this same law in radio and TV. It's about influence at a mass scale more than anything. I don't know why we would want a foreign ADVERSARY to have free reign.

idle_zealot 3y ago
This framing is all backwards. Americans go to TikTok for content of their own free will. This law effectively prevents Americans from using an information service they prefer. Unless, of course, you want to admit that social media applications, through some combination of peer pressure, advertising, propaganda, manipulation, and deception subvert the free will of some portion of their users. In which case naturally they ought to be regulated in order to protect your citizens. Except... then the regulation drafted reads as "only American companies are allowed to subvert the free will of Americans", which comes off as pretty sinister.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > Except... then the regulation drafted reads as "only American companies are allowed to subvert the free will of Americans", which comes off as pretty sinister. Sinister or not this framing makes a lot more sense than the alternative if you write it like this: “Only companies [beholden to American interests] are allowed to [influence] Americans”. The core premise is really rather dull. If the company poses a risk to Americans, then it should exist fully within reach of the US Gov regulations and completely out of the control of adversaries.
- motoxpro 3y ago
  You’re talking one level too low in the process. I’m not arguing if a us citizen should be allowed to use a property controlled by foreign adversary. I’m arguing should a foreign adversary be able to control such a large US property in the first place? In my opinion, having a direct line to > 100 million people where they can send push notifications that tell people to contact their government for a specific purpose is not so great. That’s leaving out the more subtle untraceable black box of deranking things their government doesn’t like.

Miner49er 3y ago

Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want, including whatever is on Tik Tok. This is covered by the first amendment.

xdennis 3y ago
It's not the information that's banned, it's TikTok. People don't seek to ban TikTok because they fear the content, they fear the power that an enemy nation has over their citizens. It's not a free speech issue. Imagine if a company developed a new form of paper and published many books on it. If the paper turns out to be toxic and is banned, the company can't then say "oh, no, we're being censured". It has nothing to do with the message.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  The courts can look at the effect of the ban, not just the intention. If the effect is that it ends up limiting Americans' access to information (which it would, unless ByteDance gave in and sold) then a court could find it unconstitutional. IANAL, but this is my understanding. Same holds true of your 2nd example, if it required Americans to turn in all the books they owned printed on that paper, for example.
  - eppp 3y ago
    Where on earth does it say that the government cannot limit access to information? If that were true then how on earth is book censorship legal? For that matter, how was it legal to change to digital tv broadcasts? CCP tiktok can absolutely still operate a website that wont be blocked. The medium of delivery isnt protected speech.
  - chii 3y ago
    > it ends up limiting Americans' access to information it is not a right to have unlimited access to any and all information. It is only a constitutional violation (by the gov't) to _prevent_ an american citizen from any speech. It would not be a violation to legislatively ban a company, unless that company was the only place you could make speeches, and thus resulting in the outcome where there's defacto speech repression. However, such a company ban, if it werent due a violation, would erode the trust in the US financial system. Because if the US decides they can just divest you without you violating any current known laws, it will make foreign investment in the US more difficult.

layer8 3y ago

That’s part of what is being criticized. Human rights are supposed to be universal, and some countries actually handle them like that, applying them to citizens and foreigners alike.

harkinian 3y ago
Which country gives the rest of the world the same rights as its citizens?
sophacles 3y ago
What human right is being violated? This is about what types of business are allowed to domestic and foreign entities. I've never heard anyone declare "its a basic human right for institutions designed to do business behind a liability shield to do as they please anywhere and any time".
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Human rights are just made up. It means nothing to talk about them. You can scream in a desert that water is a human right as much as you want, doesn't mean it is going to rain.
- butlike 3y ago
  Out of touch comment. It's nice to know that sometimes, there's a mutual understanding that people are people.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Of course people are people. The person I was responding to misunderstood the US constitution as a list of human rights, as well as the enforcing mechanism for the US constitution, and who it applies to.