3 ms·

I don't really understand why banning one short form video platform infringes on speech. Wouldn't that mean banning any web 2.0 platform infringes on my speech

by wrsh07 2y ago

I don't really understand why banning one short form video platform infringes on speech. Wouldn't that mean banning any web 2.0 platform infringes on my speech if I use that platform? Regardless of why the platform might be banned? There's no way that holds water

cute_boi 2y ago
Tiktok is a platform used by millions of people, and it acts like a news site for many people. Banning it due to unproved national security problem kinda make it speech problem. If web 2.0 like facebook was banned for national security issue I think it would be first amendment problem. We haven't banned rt.com yet.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  "unproved national security problem" and yet Congress was fairly well galvanized to vote for this bill after their intelligence briefings - multiple senators seem to want the briefing declassified: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-senate https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-se... Say what you want about the US government, Americans vote for them and their job is to synthesize the information brought to them and take action. The Senate obviously wasn't as overwhelmingly enthusiastic about this bill as the house, but it sure seems like people on capital hill saw something concerning. We should all probably want this information to be declassified so we can judge it for ourselves, but until then it feels unjustified to say there is no basis for the national security concern
falcolas 2y ago
IMO, it matters why they're banning it. The reasons are a worry about "national security" as related to Chinese propaganda and manipulating opinions. Those two things are speech, which makes it a valid avenue of challenge. Why something is done matters to US law just as what was done matters. And personally, since the spread of propaganda and manipulation is happening on Facebook, only targeting just the new kid on the block is terribly suspect. Especially when there's no plans to address the existing platforms and their use by foreign entities.

by wrsh07 2y ago

cute_boi 2y ago

Tiktok is a platform used by millions of people, and it acts like a news site for many people. Banning it due to unproved national security problem kinda make it speech problem. If web 2.0 like facebook was banned for national security issue I think it would be first amendment problem. We haven't banned rt.com yet.

wrsh07 2y ago
"unproved national security problem" and yet Congress was fairly well galvanized to vote for this bill after their intelligence briefings - multiple senators seem to want the briefing declassified: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-senate https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-se... Say what you want about the US government, Americans vote for them and their job is to synthesize the information brought to them and take action. The Senate obviously wasn't as overwhelmingly enthusiastic about this bill as the house, but it sure seems like people on capital hill saw something concerning. We should all probably want this information to be declassified so we can judge it for ourselves, but until then it feels unjustified to say there is no basis for the national security concern

falcolas 2y ago

IMO, it matters why they're banning it. The reasons are a worry about "national security" as related to Chinese propaganda and manipulating opinions. Those two things are speech, which makes it a valid avenue of challenge. Why something is done matters to US law just as what was done matters. And personally, since the spread of propaganda and manipulation is happening on Facebook, only targeting just the new kid on the block is terribly suspect. Especially when there's no plans to address the existing platforms and their use by foreign entities.