4 ms·

> House House Resolution 7521, dubbed the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” passed the U.S. House Of Representatives on

> House House Resolution 7521, dubbed the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” passed the U.S. House Of Representatives on a bipartisan 352-65 vote today. 352-65, that's what our congress thinks of free speech. Who's next after we set the precedent?

falcolas 3y ago
Well, without even leaving China, you have all the various videogames and other apps owned by Tencent and other such entities. There's some language that attempts to limit the bill to social media apps, but any multiplayer game would easily pass those tests.
dotBen 3y ago
Your argument is that an app which is indirectly owned and influenced by the Chinese Communist Party is a conduit for free speech and the US government banning it would be infringing in your free speech... is a strange hill to die on.
- woooooo 3y ago
  It's not about the Chinese, or any other decade's Official Villain. Its about us and our principles. Whether we stick to them. There's no "unless they're Chinese" clause in the first amendment.
  - Nostromos 3y ago
    There's also no "free speech at all costs" clause. I've always wondered why we allow Chinese companies almost unfettered access to our market when we don't get the same in return. It used to be part of the deal but China was a special case and we held out hope they'd moderate. They have not, so we no longer have to be the one playing by the rules. That aside, we're not forcing Tiktok to shut down, just forcing them to find a new owner. We're not stopping anyone from posting online, nor are we stopping anyone from posting on tiktok. If anything, this will be good for speech on tiktok, surfacing topics that were banned or deboosted by a company that has to follow the CCP rules.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      There's very clear jurisprudence on when free speech can be abridged, and it's not "vague suspicions of being nefarious". In the 2000s it was the arabs, in the 90s it was the Japanese, in the 80s it was the Russians. What would it look like if we had accumulated laws inhibiting speech from each group? We'd practically have a great firewall by now.
eureka-belief 3y ago
This has nothing to do with free speech. It’s about a foreign hostile government having access and influence over a social network that gathers data on US citizens. You don’t think the CIA leveraged the US based tech companies’ data and influence to exert power? It’s not racist if you assume that China is just following the same playbook that our intelligence services are.

falcolas 3y ago

Well, without even leaving China, you have all the various videogames and other apps owned by Tencent and other such entities. There's some language that attempts to limit the bill to social media apps, but any multiplayer game would easily pass those tests.

dotBen 3y ago

Your argument is that an app which is indirectly owned and influenced by the Chinese Communist Party is a conduit for free speech and the US government banning it would be infringing in your free speech... is a strange hill to die on.

woooooo 3y ago
It's not about the Chinese, or any other decade's Official Villain. Its about us and our principles. Whether we stick to them. There's no "unless they're Chinese" clause in the first amendment.
- Nostromos 3y ago
  There's also no "free speech at all costs" clause. I've always wondered why we allow Chinese companies almost unfettered access to our market when we don't get the same in return. It used to be part of the deal but China was a special case and we held out hope they'd moderate. They have not, so we no longer have to be the one playing by the rules. That aside, we're not forcing Tiktok to shut down, just forcing them to find a new owner. We're not stopping anyone from posting online, nor are we stopping anyone from posting on tiktok. If anything, this will be good for speech on tiktok, surfacing topics that were banned or deboosted by a company that has to follow the CCP rules.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    There's very clear jurisprudence on when free speech can be abridged, and it's not "vague suspicions of being nefarious". In the 2000s it was the arabs, in the 90s it was the Japanese, in the 80s it was the Russians. What would it look like if we had accumulated laws inhibiting speech from each group? We'd practically have a great firewall by now.

eureka-belief 3y ago

This has nothing to do with free speech. It’s about a foreign hostile government having access and influence over a social network that gathers data on US citizens. You don’t think the CIA leveraged the US based tech companies’ data and influence to exert power? It’s not racist if you assume that China is just following the same playbook that our intelligence services are.