4 ms·

Shouldn't the US prove it's better than China by its self-consistent actions with its espoused virtues of freedom of the press?

IncreasePosts 3y ago
The self consistent actions could just be "tit for tat" responses to the behavior of others. Does China allow free reign of American companies within its borders? No? Then China doesn't get that right either. Regardless, TikTok isn't going away, it is just changing owners. How does that have any effect on freedom of the press?
- ok123456 3y ago
  What if they don't want to change owners? Why should a global company from Singapore do what US politicians want?
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Then...don't? No one is forcing them to, they just can't do business in the US if that is their choice.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. TikTok can decide to not sell, in which case it's banned, or it can sell, in which case it's not.
  - falleng0d 3y ago
    I hope they don't. Then I will finally give a smartphone to my kids.
  - mjamesaustin 3y ago
    All of our global companies do what China wants to operate there, and what they ask is a lot more onerous than to spin out a separate entity for local operation. At least the US is trying to protect the privacy of its citizens in this case. The CCP meanwhile required Apple to prevent Airdrop from functioning properly in China in order to stop the spread of information between protest groups.
j0ba 3y ago
Please, US doesn't need to prove anything w.r.t freedom vs. China.
- Thiez 3y ago
  So you're saying the USA is better and thus it never needs to be compared in any aspect related to 'freedom'? That's a nice way of never having to challenge your assumptions.
  - j0ba 3y ago
    No, I'm saying what I said in OP
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    Holy fucking strawman, Batman!
    - ok123456 3y ago
      It's not a strawman. The US espouses freedom of speech, and TikTok is comparable to running a printing press. It also espouses a general freedom to own and run private enterprises. This ban runs against both of those.
      - phone8675309 3y ago
        > It's not a strawman. It is absolutely a strawman: > A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. Grandparent: Please, US doesn't need to prove anything w.r.t freedom vs. China. Parent: So you're saying the USA is better and thus it never needs to be compared in any aspect related to 'freedom'? Me: GP didn't say the USA never needs to be compared in any aspect related to freedom, they said _relative to China_ the US doesn't need to prove anything. It's objectively a strawman. That's separate from the issue of whether or not this infringes on the freedom of speech, but 1) freedom of speech in the US is not nor ever has been absolute with no limits and 2) this move absolutely deserves scrutiny.
mminer237 3y ago
The Bill of Rights does not inherently apply to non-citizens. There's nothing stopping the people from running TikTok without government oversight. The only problem is that a foreign adversary controls it. This really is not comparable to China's restrictions.
- ok123456 3y ago
  Yes, it does Yamataya v. Fisher and Yick Wo v. Hopkins. And that protection extends to commercial entities: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.
  - mminer237 3y ago
    Certain aspects of it do, but it doesn't as a whole. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez for the precedent that the Fourth Amendment doesn't totally apply to non-citizens. The Supreme Court hasn't specifically ruled on the First Amendment, it's hard to imagine that they would say hostile nations have an inalienable right to publish as much propaganda as they want in the US.
    - ok123456 3y ago
      Even assuming that exception is taken up, it would be difficult to prove in a court that TikTok is using its editorial control to publish propaganda beyond what other social media platforms do quiescently. Propaganda is what advertising is. Should the courts restrict companies from their ability to advertise?
      - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
        It's not a criminal trial. The US doesn't have to prove that TikTok did anything. They merely need to show a compelling interest in restricting its future actions.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    https://old.reddit.com/r/bjj/comments/qvecmj/sneakiness_and_misdirection_tactics https://old.reddit.com/r/bjj/comments/qvecmj/sneakiness_and_...
insane_dreamer 3y ago
Looks like the wumao's have made it to HN :)
- ok123456 3y ago
  who?
  - insane_dreamer 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
matthest 3y ago
Yes, but at some point you have to know where to draw the line. That line should be national security. If China is indeed receiving data from TikTok, the future isn't going to be fun, especially with AI tech heating up. Truth is, when China benefits, the Han Chinese people benefit. Every other ethnicity? Uncertain. When the US benefits, a variety of ethnicities benefit. The US is now diverse enough where it must work in the interest of a variety of ethnicities in order to operate effectively. So unless you're Han Chinese, you're more likely to benefit when the US wins.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
xyst 3y ago
TikTok isn’t a news organization. It’s an entertainment platform. I don’t understand the people coming out of the woodworks saying this is suppressing “freedom of the press” or speech. Set up your own domain, get a VPS, upload your trash to VPS. There ya go, no more “censorship”. Oh wait , you don’t want to do the work to set this up? Sounds like a personal problem.
- ok123456 3y ago
  > TikTok isn’t a news organization. It’s an entertainment platform. I don't remember the First Amendment distinguishing between free speech that informs and that which entertains. Most news on television is selected for its entertainment value. Does that give the government more power to regulate it?
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Freedom of the press/speech applies only to humans/entities within US borders not to foreign entities. Last time I checked China wasn't within US borders.

IncreasePosts 3y ago

The self consistent actions could just be "tit for tat" responses to the behavior of others. Does China allow free reign of American companies within its borders? No? Then China doesn't get that right either. Regardless, TikTok isn't going away, it is just changing owners. How does that have any effect on freedom of the press?

ok123456 3y ago
What if they don't want to change owners? Why should a global company from Singapore do what US politicians want?
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Then...don't? No one is forcing them to, they just can't do business in the US if that is their choice.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. TikTok can decide to not sell, in which case it's banned, or it can sell, in which case it's not.
- falleng0d 3y ago
  I hope they don't. Then I will finally give a smartphone to my kids.
- mjamesaustin 3y ago
  All of our global companies do what China wants to operate there, and what they ask is a lot more onerous than to spin out a separate entity for local operation. At least the US is trying to protect the privacy of its citizens in this case. The CCP meanwhile required Apple to prevent Airdrop from functioning properly in China in order to stop the spread of information between protest groups.

j0ba 3y ago

Please, US doesn't need to prove anything w.r.t freedom vs. China.

Thiez 3y ago
So you're saying the USA is better and thus it never needs to be compared in any aspect related to 'freedom'? That's a nice way of never having to challenge your assumptions.
- j0ba 3y ago
  No, I'm saying what I said in OP
- phone8675309 3y ago
  Holy fucking strawman, Batman!
  - ok123456 3y ago
    It's not a strawman. The US espouses freedom of speech, and TikTok is comparable to running a printing press. It also espouses a general freedom to own and run private enterprises. This ban runs against both of those.
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      > It's not a strawman. It is absolutely a strawman: > A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. Grandparent: Please, US doesn't need to prove anything w.r.t freedom vs. China. Parent: So you're saying the USA is better and thus it never needs to be compared in any aspect related to 'freedom'? Me: GP didn't say the USA never needs to be compared in any aspect related to freedom, they said _relative to China_ the US doesn't need to prove anything. It's objectively a strawman. That's separate from the issue of whether or not this infringes on the freedom of speech, but 1) freedom of speech in the US is not nor ever has been absolute with no limits and 2) this move absolutely deserves scrutiny.

mminer237 3y ago

The Bill of Rights does not inherently apply to non-citizens. There's nothing stopping the people from running TikTok without government oversight. The only problem is that a foreign adversary controls it. This really is not comparable to China's restrictions.

ok123456 3y ago
Yes, it does Yamataya v. Fisher and Yick Wo v. Hopkins. And that protection extends to commercial entities: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.
- mminer237 3y ago
  Certain aspects of it do, but it doesn't as a whole. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez for the precedent that the Fourth Amendment doesn't totally apply to non-citizens. The Supreme Court hasn't specifically ruled on the First Amendment, it's hard to imagine that they would say hostile nations have an inalienable right to publish as much propaganda as they want in the US.
  - ok123456 3y ago
    Even assuming that exception is taken up, it would be difficult to prove in a court that TikTok is using its editorial control to publish propaganda beyond what other social media platforms do quiescently. Propaganda is what advertising is. Should the courts restrict companies from their ability to advertise?
    - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
      It's not a criminal trial. The US doesn't have to prove that TikTok did anything. They merely need to show a compelling interest in restricting its future actions.
- mistermann 3y ago
  https://old.reddit.com/r/bjj/comments/qvecmj/sneakiness_and_misdirection_tactics https://old.reddit.com/r/bjj/comments/qvecmj/sneakiness_and_...

insane_dreamer 3y ago

Looks like the wumao's have made it to HN :)

ok123456 3y ago
who?
- insane_dreamer 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

matthest 3y ago

Yes, but at some point you have to know where to draw the line. That line should be national security. If China is indeed receiving data from TikTok, the future isn't going to be fun, especially with AI tech heating up. Truth is, when China benefits, the Han Chinese people benefit. Every other ethnicity? Uncertain. When the US benefits, a variety of ethnicities benefit. The US is now diverse enough where it must work in the interest of a variety of ethnicities in order to operate effectively. So unless you're Han Chinese, you're more likely to benefit when the US wins.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

xyst 3y ago

TikTok isn’t a news organization. It’s an entertainment platform. I don’t understand the people coming out of the woodworks saying this is suppressing “freedom of the press” or speech. Set up your own domain, get a VPS, upload your trash to VPS. There ya go, no more “censorship”. Oh wait , you don’t want to do the work to set this up? Sounds like a personal problem.

ok123456 3y ago
> TikTok isn’t a news organization. It’s an entertainment platform. I don't remember the First Amendment distinguishing between free speech that informs and that which entertains. Most news on television is selected for its entertainment value. Does that give the government more power to regulate it?

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Freedom of the press/speech applies only to humans/entities within US borders not to foreign entities. Last time I checked China wasn't within US borders.