4 ms·

Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fuck

Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place? That doesn't make it right.

zer00eyz 2y ago
Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled). > deeply unconstitutional It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? > categorically stupid By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
- noxs 2y ago
  That isn’t remotely true. They're not banned outright. Things like iCloud and Bing still work in China because Microsoft and Apple are willing to register a company that is owned by a Chinese owned majority and accepts audit, there is a legal fundamental for that in China's law for this. Now we are just doing exactly the same at US.
- hn_acker 2y ago
  >> deeply unconstitutional > It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    It's a law that limits what ByteDance, a foreign company run by a foreign government, can own and operate on US soil. Nothing in the constitution enshrines a right for a foreign company or government. This law changes nothing for US TikTok users.
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      > This law changes nothing for US TikTok users. The users who have a million followers or make money using TikTok are expecting that the sale doesn't happen. In the best light, the TikTok forced sale will be constitutional if it succeeds (i.e. results in a forced sale) and will be unconstitutional if it fails (i.e. results in a ban). But even assuming that a sale will happen (and putting aside the burden of demonstrating that "this law changes nothing"), two things would change. In the short term (i.e. during the transition), I would expect interruptions in the content moderation at best (temporary increase in posts in violation of TikTok's rules). In the long term, I expect the change in managing personnel to change the content moderation, including the recommendation algorithm. Users of post-sale TikTok will receive different information than they did from pre-sale TikTok. Lamont v. Postmaster General confirmed a First Amendment right for a US citizen to receive foreign propaganda in the mail without needing to tell the government "I consent to receiving foreign propaganda". If such a simple burden as having to write a sentence to the federal government to receive foreign propaganda violates the First Amendment, then surely the temporary degradation of TikTok's service (of uncertain length from the average TikTok user's perspective) in the course of a forced sale would violate the First Amendment as well. Less rigorously, I suspect that the TikTok forced sale is unconstitutional (relating to "deprived of life, liberty, or property" in the Fifth Amendment), since the US employees at TikTok's US office will have uncertain job security. Note: When I say "unconstitutional" I mean in the context of "so long as the federal government refuses to declassify its evidence that TikTok is a national security threat".

zer00eyz 2y ago

Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled). > deeply unconstitutional It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? > categorically stupid By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.

mandmandam 2y ago
It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
noxs 2y ago
That isn’t remotely true. They're not banned outright. Things like iCloud and Bing still work in China because Microsoft and Apple are willing to register a company that is owned by a Chinese owned majority and accepts audit, there is a legal fundamental for that in China's law for this. Now we are just doing exactly the same at US.
hn_acker 2y ago
>> deeply unconstitutional > It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  It's a law that limits what ByteDance, a foreign company run by a foreign government, can own and operate on US soil. Nothing in the constitution enshrines a right for a foreign company or government. This law changes nothing for US TikTok users.
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    > This law changes nothing for US TikTok users. The users who have a million followers or make money using TikTok are expecting that the sale doesn't happen. In the best light, the TikTok forced sale will be constitutional if it succeeds (i.e. results in a forced sale) and will be unconstitutional if it fails (i.e. results in a ban). But even assuming that a sale will happen (and putting aside the burden of demonstrating that "this law changes nothing"), two things would change. In the short term (i.e. during the transition), I would expect interruptions in the content moderation at best (temporary increase in posts in violation of TikTok's rules). In the long term, I expect the change in managing personnel to change the content moderation, including the recommendation algorithm. Users of post-sale TikTok will receive different information than they did from pre-sale TikTok. Lamont v. Postmaster General confirmed a First Amendment right for a US citizen to receive foreign propaganda in the mail without needing to tell the government "I consent to receiving foreign propaganda". If such a simple burden as having to write a sentence to the federal government to receive foreign propaganda violates the First Amendment, then surely the temporary degradation of TikTok's service (of uncertain length from the average TikTok user's perspective) in the course of a forced sale would violate the First Amendment as well. Less rigorously, I suspect that the TikTok forced sale is unconstitutional (relating to "deprived of life, liberty, or property" in the Fifth Amendment), since the US employees at TikTok's US office will have uncertain job security. Note: When I say "unconstitutional" I mean in the context of "so long as the federal government refuses to declassify its evidence that TikTok is a national security threat".