12 ms·

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of rel

I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. So it should be allowed under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects pledging your allegiance to the Flag, just as it protects China saying "China is great, you should love us instead". The First Amendment makes no attempt to moderate content; you can say pretty much whatever you want. If China's use of TikTok for propaganda upsets you, then it's on you to make a compelling argument that is better than theirs. (I actually don't think that TikTok is much of a Chinese propaganda avenue. People are just mad that it's telling kids to eat tide pods and then they get sick. Who knew that underfunding public education for years would have consequences.) At the end of the day, what this law is asking for is a Great Firewall around the US, that prohibits which websites its citizens can visit. I do not want that, even if China's market practices are unfair. The cure is worse than the disease.

theturtletalks 3y ago
How many times do we see the government trample on our rights behind “safety”? I’m fully with you on this. If TikTok is harmful, spread the word and let people make that decision for themselves. If kids are too small to make that decision, that falls on the parents. Don’t take away my rights because others can’t vet companies and use their brains if they should use the apps these companies put out.
- theferalrobot 3y ago
  What rights is it taking away? TikTok will still exist, you will still be able to get to it on the internet. All this bill does is force a sale OR prevent American companies from platforming technology from adversarial nations (something every government does all the time... see the US and Huawei or limiting Nvidia exports to china etc). You'll still be able to download the app from the internet (just not an App Store) or browse it on your phone on the internet. We aren't putting up a 'great firewall' or anything
  - theturtletalks 3y ago
    My mistake then, but what’s the point then? Won’t they come for the website next if TikTok doesn’t sell? I don’t even use TikTok but I know this law will be precedence for other laws blocking outside websites.
    - theferalrobot 3y ago
      Well for one, it could force the sale to a non adversarial nation. Two, if it doesn't it undercuts the companies ability to deliver it on American app platforms, both of which are a positive from the viewpoint of the US government.
    - lupire 3y ago
      That's the main loophole. The only way to ban TikTok is with a network firewall. US can ban local web hosting and even DNS (see pirate media sites), which might be enough to destroy the "network effect" of the site's popularity. But has US ever banned an IP address or routing?
- csa 3y ago
  I hope you realize that your libertarian stances are a wet dream for a pysops team. The idea of “rights” expands far beyond that which works well for you and people like you.
BatFastard 3y ago
I don't think the founders could account for international influence in the age of the Internet and smart phones. No one is asking for a great wall around the US. People are just asking that major influencers are not under the control of hostile governments.
- jrockway 3y ago
  Is international influence something that should be stopped? Like, I should check the citizenship of someone before I listen to their ideas? It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone tells me nonsense I can ignore the nonsense. It doesn't mean the government should smash their printing press. It's annoying when people in other countries rile up people to change how they vote, but ultimately, that's a problem with democracy. It's the worst system out there, except for all the others. People not understanding their government is the deeper problem. Does banning TikTok fix this problem? It sounds like we're saying "only opinion columnists who work for The New York Times and Fox News should be able to tell you how to vote and what issues you care about". That's really not great either, is it? It's really depressing watching the government strip away the rights of women and transgender people. We can't blame social media influence bots for that. It's elected officials that are doing it. TikTok is just a distraction from the true hardcore hatred that we've elected.
  - wdh505 3y ago
    I'll try to weigh in. Democratic republics like the USA are heavily swayed by people, protests, etc. In the digital age, just-in-time censorship of social media like Facebook or Twitter have been extremely effective at preventing "good/bad" protests, and each government sets the rules for the social media in the country (read easy censorship). Additionally, there have been a number of international propaganda campaigns that were successful to disrupt regular elections in the USA recently. See evidence of certain protests getting huge right before and during the russo-ukrainian conflict and covid shutdowns. Tik tok the platform's users generally contribute and consume as a "community that generates content in good faith" (I use that definition loosely), but it is a arm of soft CCP power that could just-in-time promote something terrible (brainstorming here: cultivate civil-war-esque mindsets then trigger, convince the population to avoid polio vaccines, etc.) Elections are tumultuous enough without having each "town square" potentially weaponized by potentially hostile nations, so requiring that free press be free from foreign control (influence is okay under free speech) is what is being decided here.
zachmu 3y ago
Tiktok isn't "some website", it is partially owned and controlled by the CCP, which influences what content gets shown to Americans. A majority of zoomers get most of their news and information primarily from this platform, which again is under the influence of a hostile foreign government. (TikTok also spies on US citizens for the CCP, but let's keep this restricted to the free speech argument about the ban). We actually don't have to shrug and say "oh well, first amendment" with respect to propaganda outlets of foreign countries.
- felixgallo 3y ago
  would the same argument apply to Fox News? If not, why not?
  - squigz 3y ago
    Of course not. He said "foreign countries". The propaganda outlets at home are harmless.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - squigz 3y ago
        I was being sarcastic :)
        thomastjeffery 3y ago
        I wish I was...
      - mlrtime 3y ago
        Sigh, this is tiresome.... Incredibly harmful because you don't agree with conservative politics. The same exact political opinion nonsense happens on the far left from other outlets and are just as "harmful".
Sammi 3y ago
The US constitution is for the people in the US. Chinese companies don't apply. If you want to grant freedom of speech protection under the US constitution for TikTok, then TikTok must be owned by US people.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Your point is that freedom of speech is not freedom to read. I sincerely disagree.
  - WillPostForFood 3y ago
    You still have freedom to read. You will still be able to access TikTok if they choose not to sell. This is not a firewall block on TikTok, it is a business restriction on operating within the US. It simply bars US companies from hosting TikTok services or distributing the TikTok app.
strangattractor 3y ago
The US Constitution guaranties US citizens rights not the general population of the Earth. Our government has no way to enforce or protect rights from entities outside of the US (other than force). If as you say it is just a "giant printing press" then ownership is irrelevant - change it and print away. If on the other hand the Chinese government has a vested interest in influencing what 136 million Americas consume as information - it will probably stay under a Chinese Government sphere of influence by order of the Party.
- lupire 3y ago
  That's not quite true. The Constitution protects residents and arguably visitors.
kirse 3y ago
TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. No, TikTok is essentially digital opium. And China itself has confirmed that reality by 1) restricting their citizens' daily access and 2) significantly filtering the content they can see on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-tiktok-douyin-teens-privacy/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-ti... It would only be fair of the US to follow China's example of protecting its citizens from numbing out on TikTok digital garbage. We should most certainly should follow suit with an equivalently restrictive measure.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  If you honestly believed this to be true, you would be arguing for a ban on all social media, as like half of Instagram is just reposts of TikTok content and is otherwise mind-numbingly equivalent to the service.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    False equivalence. You're essentially equating caffeine with cocaine. Not being the target audience, you're likely naive to the extent of harm enabled by tiktok.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      And you’ve lost all perspective by hopping on the bandwagon of a xenophobic moral panic. There is zero difference between Instagram Reels and TikTok garbage.
      - aydyn 3y ago
        > And you’ve lost all perspective by hopping on the bandwagon of a xenophobic moral panic In my experience the people who lead with this non-argument tend to be the most privileged. It's always nice talking down to other people of color, isn't it. > There is zero difference between Instagram Reels and TikTok garbage. Demonstrably false.
Kerrick 3y ago
Our Constitution also says, "The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Forcing a sale of TikTok so it's not foreign (with a punishment of banning if they don't), especially while making no such law for U.S. controlled competitors, is no more an infringement upon free speech than introducing a tariff or trade restriction on German-manufactured printing presses while leaving domestic models untouched.
- victorbjorklund 3y ago
  What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies? It isnt that easy.
  - orangecat 3y ago
    What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies? That would likely be unwise, but it would be a legitimate use of authority.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    That would be great! Do Apple first.
  - larrik 3y ago
    This actually isn't too far fetched with the data privacy laws in the EU. It's not an explicit directive, though.
  - eppp 3y ago
    What is the difference in making the terms of operation impossible or forcing a sale really at the end of the day? Why doesnt google or meta operate in China?
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Then American companies would need to consider whether they wanted to pull out of the market, or spin off a European version of the company.
  - 3y ago
maybelsyrup 3y ago
> People are just mad that it's telling kids to eat tide pods and then they get sick. I think it’s more accurate to say instead that “the oligarchs who run this place are just mad that it’s telling kids to support Palestine”. But in general I agree with your point!
arrosenberg 3y ago
Algorithmic content is not free speech. The government can't make Facebook censor this message or that message, but they can certainly restrict the usage of algorithmic content feeds - that is not protected by the first amendment. I'm not just talking about Tiktok either, this is the issue they should be legislating on, and it should target all social media companies. There is also legislation giving them to right to regulate foreign ownership of companies. It's scary how much of our stuff is owned by foreign governments. Seems like a national security risk.
- aethros 3y ago
  How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run. Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    Algorithms aren't protected by the US Constitution, that's ridiculous. Point me to the single person who wrote the Facebook algorithm and I will change my opinion and protect its' speech. The press is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Beyond that, commercial speech is not broadly protected. Megaphones, in general, are not free speech. And we know this. You cannot advertise cigarettes on TV, cities can ban billboards, and until recently, the law understood that donating millions of dollars to a politician is not a form a speech - it's a bribe (we'll have to work on that one). The press has a protected right to report. Even the press that are really thinly-veiled propaganda outlets get this protection. You have a protected right to speak in public and petition the government for redress without fear of reprisal. Social media and content algorithms are neither the press nor individual citizens, and they are not covered by the language or spirit of the first amendment.
Fauntleroy 3y ago
The Western world is in dire, dire need of education on geopolitics.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  "Geopolitics" and "national security" is more or less a dog whistle for nationalist types larping Civ. But ye, surely there is some need of education of the shenanigans these types are up to.
deciplex 3y ago
> I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Chinese approval of their government is much higher than most Western regimes including the US. I think you are right about how we ought to apply the 1st amendment here, but I don't find that Chinese propaganda is any more insidious or pervasive than American. We just manage it differently: in China the state directly controls the media, while in the US business interests directly control the state and the media.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
- lupire 3y ago
  Approval is always higher when disapproval is a crime punishable by disappearance.
  - deciplex 3y ago
    Okay well disapproval is still in the low double digits (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1116013/china-trust-in-government-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1116013/china-trust-in-g...) so are you claiming that China has imprisoned / "disappeared" 15% of its population?
cogman10 3y ago
This is a common misunderstanding of what the first amendment means. Speech and individual expression are individual rights and not institution rights. Perhaps you have some argument with "freedom of press" but that's a pretty hefty uphill battle for TikTok to prove that they are press and not just a random social media business. Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business can and can't say. For example, a supplement company can't advertise "This fish oil will cure your cancer!" The interstate commerce law gives congress the power to make laws that regulate businesses (that operate over state boundaries). That power includes things like outright banning a business for pretty much any reason.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business can and can't say. For example, a supplement company can't advertise "This fish oil will cure your cancer!" That's misunderstanding what law is. An individual can be tried for fraud just as a business. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    You can restrict businesses from saying things beyond what individuals can say. For example, the FCC prevents public broadcasters from saying "fuck" on the air. Yet you can yell "Fuck the police" over and over again and be protected by the first amendment. There are words and speeches that can't be aired on public TV. There are other instances of this. A publicly traded business cannot, for example, has to be careful with public statements. There are things they can't say while the stock market is open (such as announcing a merger). Yet an individual has no such restrictions on their free speech. The closest analogy would be preventing individuals from inciting a riot or issuing calls for violence. And that underlines that free speech in the US has limits (and always has). About the only speech that is pretty much fully protected is political speech, but as I said, even that falls a bit short as you can get in hot water if someone uses your political speech as inspiration for violence.
dylan604 3y ago
> Our Constitution says That's a great start, but it's only as valid as an activist judicial branch says it is. If congress passes a law that goes against the reading of that old parchment, someone brings a case that works its way to SCOTUS, then they vote based on the vacation they are provided, then the law is declared valid. If they decide it is not, then it is not. It doesn't matter what some armchair critic of the law thinks. They can tweet and tweet, they can blog and blog, they can vent on forums, but unless they become POTUS in a term where you get to sit 1/3 of the bench, you've got no real shot at changing it. Doesn't matter if you lean left or right, a single POTUS sitting 3 judges is rare enough to not consider it a real possibility. So an activist bench can cause disruption for decades/generations.
ajross 3y ago
> TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. Printing presses can't spy on the readers of the paper that goes through them[1]. I think there's a first amendment argument to be made here, but this is way too far out on the absolutist end of the spectrum, not least because this bill doesn't actually regulate TikTok's speech, only who's allowed to own it. Commercial speech is regulated in thousands of ways already in ways much more effective than this bill. If you really believe in free speech absolutism[2] the fights to be had are elsewhere. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/17/us/politics/tik-tok-spying-justice-dept.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/17/us/politics/tik-tok-spyin... [2] And no one does. Everyone starts censoring the second they get their hands on a lever.
everdrive 3y ago
>I actually don't think that TikTok is much of a Chinese propaganda avenue. I don't disagree currently, but it certainly could be used for that. Due to the invisible hand of the algorithm, it would also be hard to know if a topic was trending naturally, or if TikTok was pushing a viewpoint. Setting aside the issue of whether or not TikTok should be banned, do you agree with the potential propaganda concerns?
ribosometronome 3y ago
I don't think the US Constitution gives the Chinese Communist Party Freedom of Speech. They're generally freedoms that apply to US citizens in the US, no?
BigParm 3y ago
“You have to be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply”. Those protections will apply when the platform is owned by American citizens.
paulddraper 3y ago
The Constitution explicitly allows regulation of foreign commerce.
mannerheim 3y ago
> At the end of the day, what this law is asking for is a Great Firewall around the US, that prohibits which websites its citizens can visit. This law is asking for no such thing. Even if ByteDance refuses to sell TikTok, Americans would still be able to visit the site.
heroprotagonist 3y ago
We have laws against foreign ownership of broadcast TV and radio. Our legal system already acknowledges that foreign ownership of the media is a bad thing that should be prevented. The problem is that these laws haven't been updated for the modern era. TikTok is not covered. But this due to a failure of our politicians to respond to the modern era, not because the bill of rights enshrines or applies to foreign companies. That's why Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen in order to start FOX in the 80s. This then enabled him to build FOX News with the specific intent to become the media arm of the Republican party, by tapping Roger Ailes as the first and guiding CEO. Ailes had already worked on media campaigns for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, often credited as a major factor in their victories. So he got to run the day to day of the party's new media arm. Murdoch himself was an international operator who wanted political power for the benefits rather than the ideology. This is demonstrated by the much more liberal leanings in Australia when that was the party willing to grant him power. What could the impacts be today, if FOX News was owned by the CCP instead of an Aussie of negotiable political virtue?
- jrockway 3y ago
  The law in the US is that you can't make radio transmissions on TV / AM / FM frequencies without a license, because left unchecked, everyone doing what they want would make radio useless for everyone. The government has a clear reason to require licenses, and they have the power to restrict who can receive one. The Internet doesn't work like that, though. No license is required to make a website or mobile app, because websites and mobile apps don't interfere with each other. The government wouldn't have a very strong argument to require websites to have a license, because they have no reason for doing that other than in moderating the content of the website, which is prohibited by the Constitution. In the past, TV licenses were absolutely used to censor viewpoints the government didn't like, but now that is no longer possible, because nobody cares about TV or radio. You can bring in whatever content you want from anywhere in the world, thanks to the Internet. That is what the government is salty about; they are losing control because people don't care about TV anymore. (I'll also point out that shortwave radio still exists. You can tune your radio to, say, 5910kHz and listen to CCP propaganda all day, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. On the flip side, we have Voice of America for a reason. We like broadcasting American propaganda into China just as much as China likes the reverse. Unfortunately, nobody listens to shortwave radio anymore. That's what the US is mad about; people like TikTok, but they don't have anything like it.)
Intralexical 3y ago
> TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. So it should be allowed under the First Amendment. I don't think the First Amendment would allow you to use a printing press built out of embargoed components, or arsenic compounds. The ban isn't on speech. It's on the platform/product, how it's built and distrbuted, and (correctly or not) perceived ways it harms society. You can have a short-form vertical video app focused on an algorithmic recommendation feed, and you can say whatever you want on that service. But it seems Washington doesn't want it to be sending data and money overseas to the PRC. > The First Amendment protects pledging your allegiance to the Flag, just as it protects China saying "China is great, you should love us instead". The US constitution gives foreign governments the same rights that it gives its own citizens? …Okay. It actually may or may not give US citizens the "Right to Receive Foreign Speech", without conferring any rights onto the foreign entities themselves, but that's still very much an open question. Here's 50 pages (that I haven't read) on the matter, if you're into it: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=olr https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
fennecbutt 3y ago
You talk about lowest common denominator but that's kind of always been a core issue. Imagine an enlightened and advanced technological culture that refuses to fight. For all their advancements and liberal policies they're still open to being obliterated by another culture that doesn't really care about the whole "war is bad" thing. I think as society/morals/ethics/law advances, we still need protections in place for "how could somebody exploit this if they don't play by the same rules that we do". We'll always, unfortunately, still need a person with a large stick and the threat of violence even in a peaceful society.

theturtletalks 3y ago

How many times do we see the government trample on our rights behind “safety”? I’m fully with you on this. If TikTok is harmful, spread the word and let people make that decision for themselves. If kids are too small to make that decision, that falls on the parents. Don’t take away my rights because others can’t vet companies and use their brains if they should use the apps these companies put out.

theferalrobot 3y ago
What rights is it taking away? TikTok will still exist, you will still be able to get to it on the internet. All this bill does is force a sale OR prevent American companies from platforming technology from adversarial nations (something every government does all the time... see the US and Huawei or limiting Nvidia exports to china etc). You'll still be able to download the app from the internet (just not an App Store) or browse it on your phone on the internet. We aren't putting up a 'great firewall' or anything
- theturtletalks 3y ago
  My mistake then, but what’s the point then? Won’t they come for the website next if TikTok doesn’t sell? I don’t even use TikTok but I know this law will be precedence for other laws blocking outside websites.
  - theferalrobot 3y ago
    Well for one, it could force the sale to a non adversarial nation. Two, if it doesn't it undercuts the companies ability to deliver it on American app platforms, both of which are a positive from the viewpoint of the US government.
  - lupire 3y ago
    That's the main loophole. The only way to ban TikTok is with a network firewall. US can ban local web hosting and even DNS (see pirate media sites), which might be enough to destroy the "network effect" of the site's popularity. But has US ever banned an IP address or routing?
csa 3y ago
I hope you realize that your libertarian stances are a wet dream for a pysops team. The idea of “rights” expands far beyond that which works well for you and people like you.

BatFastard 3y ago

I don't think the founders could account for international influence in the age of the Internet and smart phones. No one is asking for a great wall around the US. People are just asking that major influencers are not under the control of hostile governments.

jrockway 3y ago
Is international influence something that should be stopped? Like, I should check the citizenship of someone before I listen to their ideas? It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone tells me nonsense I can ignore the nonsense. It doesn't mean the government should smash their printing press. It's annoying when people in other countries rile up people to change how they vote, but ultimately, that's a problem with democracy. It's the worst system out there, except for all the others. People not understanding their government is the deeper problem. Does banning TikTok fix this problem? It sounds like we're saying "only opinion columnists who work for The New York Times and Fox News should be able to tell you how to vote and what issues you care about". That's really not great either, is it? It's really depressing watching the government strip away the rights of women and transgender people. We can't blame social media influence bots for that. It's elected officials that are doing it. TikTok is just a distraction from the true hardcore hatred that we've elected.
- wdh505 3y ago
  I'll try to weigh in. Democratic republics like the USA are heavily swayed by people, protests, etc. In the digital age, just-in-time censorship of social media like Facebook or Twitter have been extremely effective at preventing "good/bad" protests, and each government sets the rules for the social media in the country (read easy censorship). Additionally, there have been a number of international propaganda campaigns that were successful to disrupt regular elections in the USA recently. See evidence of certain protests getting huge right before and during the russo-ukrainian conflict and covid shutdowns. Tik tok the platform's users generally contribute and consume as a "community that generates content in good faith" (I use that definition loosely), but it is a arm of soft CCP power that could just-in-time promote something terrible (brainstorming here: cultivate civil-war-esque mindsets then trigger, convince the population to avoid polio vaccines, etc.) Elections are tumultuous enough without having each "town square" potentially weaponized by potentially hostile nations, so requiring that free press be free from foreign control (influence is okay under free speech) is what is being decided here.

zachmu 3y ago

Tiktok isn't "some website", it is partially owned and controlled by the CCP, which influences what content gets shown to Americans. A majority of zoomers get most of their news and information primarily from this platform, which again is under the influence of a hostile foreign government. (TikTok also spies on US citizens for the CCP, but let's keep this restricted to the free speech argument about the ban). We actually don't have to shrug and say "oh well, first amendment" with respect to propaganda outlets of foreign countries.

felixgallo 3y ago
would the same argument apply to Fox News? If not, why not?
- squigz 3y ago
  Of course not. He said "foreign countries". The propaganda outlets at home are harmless.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - squigz 3y ago
      I was being sarcastic :)
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        I wish I was...
    - mlrtime 3y ago
      Sigh, this is tiresome.... Incredibly harmful because you don't agree with conservative politics. The same exact political opinion nonsense happens on the far left from other outlets and are just as "harmful".

Sammi 3y ago

The US constitution is for the people in the US. Chinese companies don't apply. If you want to grant freedom of speech protection under the US constitution for TikTok, then TikTok must be owned by US people.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Your point is that freedom of speech is not freedom to read. I sincerely disagree.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  You still have freedom to read. You will still be able to access TikTok if they choose not to sell. This is not a firewall block on TikTok, it is a business restriction on operating within the US. It simply bars US companies from hosting TikTok services or distributing the TikTok app.

strangattractor 3y ago

The US Constitution guaranties US citizens rights not the general population of the Earth. Our government has no way to enforce or protect rights from entities outside of the US (other than force). If as you say it is just a "giant printing press" then ownership is irrelevant - change it and print away. If on the other hand the Chinese government has a vested interest in influencing what 136 million Americas consume as information - it will probably stay under a Chinese Government sphere of influence by order of the Party.

lupire 3y ago
That's not quite true. The Constitution protects residents and arguably visitors.

kirse 3y ago

TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. No, TikTok is essentially digital opium. And China itself has confirmed that reality by 1) restricting their citizens' daily access and 2) significantly filtering the content they can see on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-tiktok-douyin-teens-privacy/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-ti... It would only be fair of the US to follow China's example of protecting its citizens from numbing out on TikTok digital garbage. We should most certainly should follow suit with an equivalently restrictive measure.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
If you honestly believed this to be true, you would be arguing for a ban on all social media, as like half of Instagram is just reposts of TikTok content and is otherwise mind-numbingly equivalent to the service.
- aydyn 3y ago
  False equivalence. You're essentially equating caffeine with cocaine. Not being the target audience, you're likely naive to the extent of harm enabled by tiktok.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    And you’ve lost all perspective by hopping on the bandwagon of a xenophobic moral panic. There is zero difference between Instagram Reels and TikTok garbage.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      > And you’ve lost all perspective by hopping on the bandwagon of a xenophobic moral panic In my experience the people who lead with this non-argument tend to be the most privileged. It's always nice talking down to other people of color, isn't it. > There is zero difference between Instagram Reels and TikTok garbage. Demonstrably false.

Kerrick 3y ago

Our Constitution also says, "The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Forcing a sale of TikTok so it's not foreign (with a punishment of banning if they don't), especially while making no such law for U.S. controlled competitors, is no more an infringement upon free speech than introducing a tariff or trade restriction on German-manufactured printing presses while leaving domestic models untouched.

victorbjorklund 3y ago
What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies? It isnt that easy.
- orangecat 3y ago
  What if EU forced american companies to sell off their stuff to european companies? That would likely be unwise, but it would be a legitimate use of authority.
- maxwell 3y ago
  That would be great! Do Apple first.
- larrik 3y ago
  This actually isn't too far fetched with the data privacy laws in the EU. It's not an explicit directive, though.
- eppp 3y ago
  What is the difference in making the terms of operation impossible or forcing a sale really at the end of the day? Why doesnt google or meta operate in China?
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Then American companies would need to consider whether they wanted to pull out of the market, or spin off a European version of the company.
- 3y ago

maybelsyrup 3y ago

> People are just mad that it's telling kids to eat tide pods and then they get sick. I think it’s more accurate to say instead that “the oligarchs who run this place are just mad that it’s telling kids to support Palestine”. But in general I agree with your point!

arrosenberg 3y ago

Algorithmic content is not free speech. The government can't make Facebook censor this message or that message, but they can certainly restrict the usage of algorithmic content feeds - that is not protected by the first amendment. I'm not just talking about Tiktok either, this is the issue they should be legislating on, and it should target all social media companies. There is also legislation giving them to right to regulate foreign ownership of companies. It's scary how much of our stuff is owned by foreign governments. Seems like a national security risk.

aethros 3y ago
How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run. Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Algorithms aren't protected by the US Constitution, that's ridiculous. Point me to the single person who wrote the Facebook algorithm and I will change my opinion and protect its' speech. The press is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Beyond that, commercial speech is not broadly protected. Megaphones, in general, are not free speech. And we know this. You cannot advertise cigarettes on TV, cities can ban billboards, and until recently, the law understood that donating millions of dollars to a politician is not a form a speech - it's a bribe (we'll have to work on that one). The press has a protected right to report. Even the press that are really thinly-veiled propaganda outlets get this protection. You have a protected right to speak in public and petition the government for redress without fear of reprisal. Social media and content algorithms are neither the press nor individual citizens, and they are not covered by the language or spirit of the first amendment.

Fauntleroy 3y ago

The Western world is in dire, dire need of education on geopolitics.

rightbyte 3y ago
"Geopolitics" and "national security" is more or less a dog whistle for nationalist types larping Civ. But ye, surely there is some need of education of the shenanigans these types are up to.

deciplex 3y ago

> I don't think we should "lowest common denominator" to oppressive regimes. Chinese approval of their government is much higher than most Western regimes including the US. I think you are right about how we ought to apply the 1st amendment here, but I don't find that Chinese propaganda is any more insidious or pervasive than American. We just manage it differently: in China the state directly controls the media, while in the US business interests directly control the state and the media.

AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]
lupire 3y ago
Approval is always higher when disapproval is a crime punishable by disappearance.
- deciplex 3y ago
  Okay well disapproval is still in the low double digits (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1116013/china-trust-in-government-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1116013/china-trust-in-g...) so are you claiming that China has imprisoned / "disappeared" 15% of its population?

cogman10 3y ago

This is a common misunderstanding of what the first amendment means. Speech and individual expression are individual rights and not institution rights. Perhaps you have some argument with "freedom of press" but that's a pretty hefty uphill battle for TikTok to prove that they are press and not just a random social media business. Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business can and can't say. For example, a supplement company can't advertise "This fish oil will cure your cancer!" The interstate commerce law gives congress the power to make laws that regulate businesses (that operate over state boundaries). That power includes things like outright banning a business for pretty much any reason.

carlosjobim 3y ago
> Some of our oldest and most well supported laws revolve around limiting what a business can and can't say. For example, a supplement company can't advertise "This fish oil will cure your cancer!" That's misunderstanding what law is. An individual can be tried for fraud just as a business. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech.
- cogman10 3y ago
  You can restrict businesses from saying things beyond what individuals can say. For example, the FCC prevents public broadcasters from saying "fuck" on the air. Yet you can yell "Fuck the police" over and over again and be protected by the first amendment. There are words and speeches that can't be aired on public TV. There are other instances of this. A publicly traded business cannot, for example, has to be careful with public statements. There are things they can't say while the stock market is open (such as announcing a merger). Yet an individual has no such restrictions on their free speech. The closest analogy would be preventing individuals from inciting a riot or issuing calls for violence. And that underlines that free speech in the US has limits (and always has). About the only speech that is pretty much fully protected is political speech, but as I said, even that falls a bit short as you can get in hot water if someone uses your political speech as inspiration for violence.

dylan604 3y ago

> Our Constitution says That's a great start, but it's only as valid as an activist judicial branch says it is. If congress passes a law that goes against the reading of that old parchment, someone brings a case that works its way to SCOTUS, then they vote based on the vacation they are provided, then the law is declared valid. If they decide it is not, then it is not. It doesn't matter what some armchair critic of the law thinks. They can tweet and tweet, they can blog and blog, they can vent on forums, but unless they become POTUS in a term where you get to sit 1/3 of the bench, you've got no real shot at changing it. Doesn't matter if you lean left or right, a single POTUS sitting 3 judges is rare enough to not consider it a real possibility. So an activist bench can cause disruption for decades/generations.

ajross 3y ago

> TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. Printing presses can't spy on the readers of the paper that goes through them[1]. I think there's a first amendment argument to be made here, but this is way too far out on the absolutist end of the spectrum, not least because this bill doesn't actually regulate TikTok's speech, only who's allowed to own it. Commercial speech is regulated in thousands of ways already in ways much more effective than this bill. If you really believe in free speech absolutism[2] the fights to be had are elsewhere. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/17/us/politics/tik-tok-spying-justice-dept.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/17/us/politics/tik-tok-spyin... [2] And no one does. Everyone starts censoring the second they get their hands on a lever.

everdrive 3y ago

>I actually don't think that TikTok is much of a Chinese propaganda avenue. I don't disagree currently, but it certainly could be used for that. Due to the invisible hand of the algorithm, it would also be hard to know if a topic was trending naturally, or if TikTok was pushing a viewpoint. Setting aside the issue of whether or not TikTok should be banned, do you agree with the potential propaganda concerns?

ribosometronome 3y ago

I don't think the US Constitution gives the Chinese Communist Party Freedom of Speech. They're generally freedoms that apply to US citizens in the US, no?

BigParm 3y ago

“You have to be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply”. Those protections will apply when the platform is owned by American citizens.

paulddraper 3y ago

The Constitution explicitly allows regulation of foreign commerce.

mannerheim 3y ago

> At the end of the day, what this law is asking for is a Great Firewall around the US, that prohibits which websites its citizens can visit. This law is asking for no such thing. Even if ByteDance refuses to sell TikTok, Americans would still be able to visit the site.

heroprotagonist 3y ago

We have laws against foreign ownership of broadcast TV and radio. Our legal system already acknowledges that foreign ownership of the media is a bad thing that should be prevented. The problem is that these laws haven't been updated for the modern era. TikTok is not covered. But this due to a failure of our politicians to respond to the modern era, not because the bill of rights enshrines or applies to foreign companies. That's why Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen in order to start FOX in the 80s. This then enabled him to build FOX News with the specific intent to become the media arm of the Republican party, by tapping Roger Ailes as the first and guiding CEO. Ailes had already worked on media campaigns for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, often credited as a major factor in their victories. So he got to run the day to day of the party's new media arm. Murdoch himself was an international operator who wanted political power for the benefits rather than the ideology. This is demonstrated by the much more liberal leanings in Australia when that was the party willing to grant him power. What could the impacts be today, if FOX News was owned by the CCP instead of an Aussie of negotiable political virtue?

jrockway 3y ago
The law in the US is that you can't make radio transmissions on TV / AM / FM frequencies without a license, because left unchecked, everyone doing what they want would make radio useless for everyone. The government has a clear reason to require licenses, and they have the power to restrict who can receive one. The Internet doesn't work like that, though. No license is required to make a website or mobile app, because websites and mobile apps don't interfere with each other. The government wouldn't have a very strong argument to require websites to have a license, because they have no reason for doing that other than in moderating the content of the website, which is prohibited by the Constitution. In the past, TV licenses were absolutely used to censor viewpoints the government didn't like, but now that is no longer possible, because nobody cares about TV or radio. You can bring in whatever content you want from anywhere in the world, thanks to the Internet. That is what the government is salty about; they are losing control because people don't care about TV anymore. (I'll also point out that shortwave radio still exists. You can tune your radio to, say, 5910kHz and listen to CCP propaganda all day, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. On the flip side, we have Voice of America for a reason. We like broadcasting American propaganda into China just as much as China likes the reverse. Unfortunately, nobody listens to shortwave radio anymore. That's what the US is mad about; people like TikTok, but they don't have anything like it.)

Intralexical 3y ago

> TikTok, at the end of the day, is just a kind of printing press. So it should be allowed under the First Amendment. I don't think the First Amendment would allow you to use a printing press built out of embargoed components, or arsenic compounds. The ban isn't on speech. It's on the platform/product, how it's built and distrbuted, and (correctly or not) perceived ways it harms society. You can have a short-form vertical video app focused on an algorithmic recommendation feed, and you can say whatever you want on that service. But it seems Washington doesn't want it to be sending data and money overseas to the PRC. > The First Amendment protects pledging your allegiance to the Flag, just as it protects China saying "China is great, you should love us instead". The US constitution gives foreign governments the same rights that it gives its own citizens? …Okay. It actually may or may not give US citizens the "Right to Receive Foreign Speech", without conferring any rights onto the foreign entities themselves, but that's still very much an open question. Here's 50 pages (that I haven't read) on the matter, if you're into it: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=olr https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

fennecbutt 3y ago

You talk about lowest common denominator but that's kind of always been a core issue. Imagine an enlightened and advanced technological culture that refuses to fight. For all their advancements and liberal policies they're still open to being obliterated by another culture that doesn't really care about the whole "war is bad" thing. I think as society/morals/ethics/law advances, we still need protections in place for "how could somebody exploit this if they don't play by the same rules that we do". We'll always, unfortunately, still need a person with a large stick and the threat of violence even in a peaceful society.