6 ms·

Bizarre, in the land of free speech the government is suppressing it.

talldayo 2y ago
Ironic how the EU comes out on top for acknowledging sideloading as a fundamental feature of smartphones. It will take the "it's a series of tubes" guys quite some time to figure that one out.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  I think the main problem will be TikTok to conduct business in America, charge for ads to target American users and pay American content providers. It’s just a free app if they can’t earn money on it.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    God, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it’s the perfect use case for crypto to avoid US payment rail controls. Get a16z on the phone, he said with less sarcasm than one would expect.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Using crypto doesn’t somehow make you immune to prosecution. If the government says TikTok is banned, no company’s chief counsel is going to suggest getting around the ban by using bitcoin.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        It took forever for the US to do anything about Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb breaking the law. In a post competency, low regulation environment we’re entering, it makes sense to explore creative solutions to extend runway imho (vs immediately folding).
        mrbombastic 2y ago
        I would argue the lack of action against those was due to lack of political will. At least at the beginning many saw Uber and Airbnb as net positives, American led innovators offering competition to hotels and taxi cartels. TikTok on the other hand is getting hammered by both sides of the aisle. the incoming admin has its contradictions but has been pretty pro tariff / anti Chinese competition so I am not sure games like that are going to play much but we shall see.
        mrbombastic 2y ago
        I can’t edit this now but I see Trump has changed his tune on TikTok in another comment, so maybe they will have better luck.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/22/trump-says-he-wants-to-keep-tiktok-around-for-a-little-while/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/22/trump-says-he-wants-to-kee... https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-worth-keeping-tiktok-us-little-while-2024-12-22/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-wo... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre7vdz4npzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre7vdz4npzo
        gretch 2y ago
        > It took forever for the US to do anything about Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb breaking the law. And yet look how fast tik tok was banned.
bdangubic 2y ago
Land of free speech? Maybe in like a John Wayne movie was this ever true… Like you know other parts of Bill or “Rights” like “prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures” except like your toothpaste at the airport… Americans are generally too funny thinking it is still “land of the free”
- rodgerd 2y ago
  Hayes Code. Comics Code Authority. And so on and so forth.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    None of those were laws?
    - kombookcha 2y ago
      The Hayes Code exists to have a standardized industry guideline in response to individual states issuing dozens of differing film censorship bills. So while it is not a law, it is a guideline for how to be compliant with a rapidly proliferating number of censorship laws.
- hyperpape 2y ago
  > Land of free speech? Maybe in like a John Wayne movie was this ever true… What country would you say has stronger free speech protections than the US? I won't say there's none, because there are roughly 200 countries, and I don't know enough about many of them, but I cannot name one. Not the UK, France or Germany, and I'd be surprised to find any other European country. For a sampling of other laws/measures: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_(legal) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#/media/File:World_Map_of_the_Freedom_of_the_Press_Status,_OWID.svg Now...if this ban sticks, it will make your snark a lot more valid, starting with the year 2025.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
We should be more like China then? I’m confused.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lttlrck 2y ago
    Explain the GFW then? Because that seems like the flip-side of the very same coin?
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    China doesn’t officially block any American social media. If you ask your Chinese ISP they say it’s just technical problems. There is probably a list somewhere that is considered a state secret, like the list of banned words and banned books. You do not want to cross China’s broad state secrets law by even pretending to know. Anyways, China should feel proud that this is the first social media app from China that the Americans thought was worth banning. And in China you know that if something is worth banning it must be good right?
    - washadjeffmad 2y ago
      We shouldn't get into a dick measuring contest over who hides more from their citizens. That the Chinese have used our brain worm factories against us, infiltrated our domestic surveillance and wiretapping systems, and let themselves into our completely volitional infrastructure backdoors should only stimulate us to ask why we created such things in the first place. Where's our canary, again?
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Oh, I agree, the USA shouldn’t ban TikTok like China shouldn’t have banned…almost all of the non-Chinese social media services. Neither is going to lead to a better market, tech landscape, and I don’t believe national security is a valid concern in any case. But I really meant what I said about china probably having pride in TikTok now, being banned by your competitor country really is an achievement. Nobody has even brought up Europe approach to requiring data on shoring and stricter privacy controls, which is the real way to deal with either issue.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
"Free speech" is not like the free square in Bingo. You can't just use it whenever. Commerce is already regulated, speech is already regulated, there's no way around those things not being absolute. If you have a specific argument about the nuance of this situation, then make it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nadermx 2y ago
  "the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional, since it imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
  - sebzim4500 2y ago
    That seems like a very different case since it imposed different rules depending on the content of the speech. The analogous situation to the tiktok ban would be shutting down the postal service, which would be surprising but presumably constitutional.
- porknubbins 2y ago
  I’m no Tiktok fan but the US has extremely broad free speech protections and its hard to see how this could be constitutional. Individuals posting videos of themselves is clearly speech so we are in the 1st amendment territory. None of the usual exceptions for certain types of content (defamation, threats, fraud etc) apply because the restriction isn’t on specific content. The only way out I could see is saying national security/secrets require us to prevent the Chinese company Tiktok from operating in the US.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
    But their free speech isn’t limited. They lose a platform, which is something completely different. Free speech doesn’t mean having to facilitate it. People can still create a website and post their clips, or move to instagram or Snapchat or bluesky or twitter or whatever.
unitedscamerica 2y ago
This has nothing to do with speech.
- gamesetmath 2y ago
  [dead]
- nadermx 2y ago
  So banning a public square has nothing to do with free speech? "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    "The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok_v._Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok_v._Garland
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      They've determined that it's not a violation of free speech because China, and that it's not a bill of attainder because China. You could replace "China" with anything. What does it mean to be a "foreign adversary?" When did voters get a say in that? When Democrats (and every media outlet) were accusing Trump of being a secret Russian agent, and people who supported him of being traitors, would it have been legal (and not a "punishment" but a "prophylactic" as the appeals court said about TikTok) for the legislature to limit their free speech by name?
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    It’s not a public square. They ban people from their private square all the time.
hetman 2y ago
[flagged]
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  Aren't most TikTok videos viewed by americans made by americans?
  - epoxia 2y ago
    "I only believe in flat earthers from the US of A. Wouldn't want to be manipulated by any foreign governments". There are so many useful idiots, they were never going to manipulate you directly, there's too many people. I can't even tell how much of this comment section is astroturfed / bot driven anymore.

Ironic how the EU comes out on top for acknowledging sideloading as a fundamental feature of smartphones. It will take the "it's a series of tubes" guys quite some time to figure that one out.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
I think the main problem will be TikTok to conduct business in America, charge for ads to target American users and pay American content providers. It’s just a free app if they can’t earn money on it.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  God, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it’s the perfect use case for crypto to avoid US payment rail controls. Get a16z on the phone, he said with less sarcasm than one would expect.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Using crypto doesn’t somehow make you immune to prosecution. If the government says TikTok is banned, no company’s chief counsel is going to suggest getting around the ban by using bitcoin.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      It took forever for the US to do anything about Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb breaking the law. In a post competency, low regulation environment we’re entering, it makes sense to explore creative solutions to extend runway imho (vs immediately folding).
      - mrbombastic 2y ago
        I would argue the lack of action against those was due to lack of political will. At least at the beginning many saw Uber and Airbnb as net positives, American led innovators offering competition to hotels and taxi cartels. TikTok on the other hand is getting hammered by both sides of the aisle. the incoming admin has its contradictions but has been pretty pro tariff / anti Chinese competition so I am not sure games like that are going to play much but we shall see.
        mrbombastic 2y ago
        I can’t edit this now but I see Trump has changed his tune on TikTok in another comment, so maybe they will have better luck.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/22/trump-says-he-wants-to-keep-tiktok-around-for-a-little-while/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/22/trump-says-he-wants-to-kee... https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-worth-keeping-tiktok-us-little-while-2024-12-22/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-wo... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre7vdz4npzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre7vdz4npzo
      - gretch 2y ago
        > It took forever for the US to do anything about Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb breaking the law. And yet look how fast tik tok was banned.

bdangubic 2y ago

Land of free speech? Maybe in like a John Wayne movie was this ever true… Like you know other parts of Bill or “Rights” like “prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures” except like your toothpaste at the airport… Americans are generally too funny thinking it is still “land of the free”

rodgerd 2y ago
Hayes Code. Comics Code Authority. And so on and so forth.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  None of those were laws?
  - kombookcha 2y ago
    The Hayes Code exists to have a standardized industry guideline in response to individual states issuing dozens of differing film censorship bills. So while it is not a law, it is a guideline for how to be compliant with a rapidly proliferating number of censorship laws.
hyperpape 2y ago
> Land of free speech? Maybe in like a John Wayne movie was this ever true… What country would you say has stronger free speech protections than the US? I won't say there's none, because there are roughly 200 countries, and I don't know enough about many of them, but I cannot name one. Not the UK, France or Germany, and I'd be surprised to find any other European country. For a sampling of other laws/measures: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_(legal) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#/media/File:World_Map_of_the_Freedom_of_the_Press_Status,_OWID.svg Now...if this ban sticks, it will make your snark a lot more valid, starting with the year 2025.
- bdangubic 2y ago

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

We should be more like China then? I’m confused.

bdangubic 2y ago
[flagged]
- lttlrck 2y ago
  Explain the GFW then? Because that seems like the flip-side of the very same coin?
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  China doesn’t officially block any American social media. If you ask your Chinese ISP they say it’s just technical problems. There is probably a list somewhere that is considered a state secret, like the list of banned words and banned books. You do not want to cross China’s broad state secrets law by even pretending to know. Anyways, China should feel proud that this is the first social media app from China that the Americans thought was worth banning. And in China you know that if something is worth banning it must be good right?
  - washadjeffmad 2y ago
    We shouldn't get into a dick measuring contest over who hides more from their citizens. That the Chinese have used our brain worm factories against us, infiltrated our domestic surveillance and wiretapping systems, and let themselves into our completely volitional infrastructure backdoors should only stimulate us to ask why we created such things in the first place. Where's our canary, again?
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Oh, I agree, the USA shouldn’t ban TikTok like China shouldn’t have banned…almost all of the non-Chinese social media services. Neither is going to lead to a better market, tech landscape, and I don’t believe national security is a valid concern in any case. But I really meant what I said about china probably having pride in TikTok now, being banned by your competitor country really is an achievement. Nobody has even brought up Europe approach to requiring data on shoring and stricter privacy controls, which is the real way to deal with either issue.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

"Free speech" is not like the free square in Bingo. You can't just use it whenever. Commerce is already regulated, speech is already regulated, there's no way around those things not being absolute. If you have a specific argument about the nuance of this situation, then make it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nadermx 2y ago
"the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional, since it imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  That seems like a very different case since it imposed different rules depending on the content of the speech. The analogous situation to the tiktok ban would be shutting down the postal service, which would be surprising but presumably constitutional.
porknubbins 2y ago
I’m no Tiktok fan but the US has extremely broad free speech protections and its hard to see how this could be constitutional. Individuals posting videos of themselves is clearly speech so we are in the 1st amendment territory. None of the usual exceptions for certain types of content (defamation, threats, fraud etc) apply because the restriction isn’t on specific content. The only way out I could see is saying national security/secrets require us to prevent the Chinese company Tiktok from operating in the US.
- FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
  But their free speech isn’t limited. They lose a platform, which is something completely different. Free speech doesn’t mean having to facilitate it. People can still create a website and post their clips, or move to instagram or Snapchat or bluesky or twitter or whatever.

unitedscamerica 2y ago

This has nothing to do with speech.

gamesetmath 2y ago
[dead]
nadermx 2y ago
So banning a public square has nothing to do with free speech? "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  "The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok_v._Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok_v._Garland
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    They've determined that it's not a violation of free speech because China, and that it's not a bill of attainder because China. You could replace "China" with anything. What does it mean to be a "foreign adversary?" When did voters get a say in that? When Democrats (and every media outlet) were accusing Trump of being a secret Russian agent, and people who supported him of being traitors, would it have been legal (and not a "punishment" but a "prophylactic" as the appeals court said about TikTok) for the legislature to limit their free speech by name?
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  It’s not a public square. They ban people from their private square all the time.

hetman 2y ago

[flagged]

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
Aren't most TikTok videos viewed by americans made by americans?
- epoxia 2y ago
  "I only believe in flat earthers from the US of A. Wouldn't want to be manipulated by any foreign governments". There are so many useful idiots, they were never going to manipulate you directly, there's too many people. I can't even tell how much of this comment section is astroturfed / bot driven anymore.