6 ms·
U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over TikTok divestment law
- throwaway48476 2y agoI'm surprised the US doesn't have 'reciprocity' laws that target the Chinese practices.
- izacus 2y agoWhy would US have a law that says "We'll enact every Chinese law, therefore changing US into China itself"?!
- Fauntleroy 2y agoYou can only take the ideology olympics so far in geopolitical warfare
- throwaway48476 2y agoIt would only apply to Chinese companies, thus the reciprocity.
- gretch 2y agoNote that china blocks all foreign companies while this bill blocks only foreign adversaries of the US (china, Russia, Iran, NK) while maintaining free trade with all the other places in the world.
- swatcoder 2y agoThat's not what they're suggesting. They're noting that digital services have come to look more like traditional goods, and reasonably warrant analogous trade policies. If a foreign market bans or regulates some good on import, reciprocity just suggests applying an equivalent measure on their exports. Here, China restricts many US social media products, which a free market advocate would call an unfair distortion of the market, that deserves to be balanced by reciprocal restrictions on their social media products. (perhaps in the hopes of pressuring China to stand down their restricitions and "play fair")
- izacus 2y agoAnd to legislate any of that, there's no need for something fundamentally misguided like "a law that automatically copies legislation of another country without control". US Government can legislate those restrictions, it's what its there for. This isn't software.
- uludag 2y agoSounds like this could be the premise for a chapter in the book "Invisible Cities": I shall now explain to the city of Fransisca, the blue city upon who's golden shores the azure waves drift over, and above which a sapphire sky is rent asunder by the golden sun, bringing an ever so grand glistening upon its ember shores. But above Fransisca, beyond it's beaches and waters, lies another city, marked by furling banners of red, whoe jealousy of Fransisca has caused it to erect a barrier so as to not see its flourishing. Fransisca with her petulance at seeing the barrier erect, so too constructed a barrier upon her shores. Concrete slabs covering her beaches, costal grasslands made way to fences. In this way Fransisca became a mirror image of her overseas counterpart. And the crimson city, unable to see Fransisca eventual forgot why the barriers were build. One by one each stone brick was removed. Parking lots were raised in who's place grasslands grew. And in such a manner the crimson city became Fransisca. Actually, Fransisca has always been the crimson city and what we know today as Fransisca is actually the city of red banners of old. Time will tell if the true Fransisca will be remembered.
- talldayo 2y agoIf the US attempted to pass reciprocal laws for every Chinese policy, America would go bankrupt within the month.
- Matticus_Rex 2y agoGeneral reciprocity is a bad idea, because many laws suck and are a net bad for the country implementing them. Reciprocal tariffs are common, but harmful to the countries that implement them — if you're in a boat and the other guy shoots a hole in it, you don't get back at him by shooting another hold in the boat, and the threat of reciprocal tariffs usually doesn't work to get the original tariffs rescinded.
- ChadBrogramer69 2y ago[flagged]
- edmundsauto 2y agoI think it's more about the game theory of (MAD) than actual impact. The ideal state is reputation of reciprocity without actually having to do it. But because the US has a policy of openness / rich people in the US want to sell stuff made cheaply... it's fairly one way. In the 1970s, the USSR would literally just buy the latest US chips. No need for much crazy subterfuge and honeypots - go to conference, find someone with chips who likes cash, and buy them. That's what led to the crypto bans in the 1990s, where software that implemented cryptographic technology couldn't be exported - as if bits cared much about crossing borders and clickwraps!
- braiamp 2y agoTik for tat exists, but only when you can have a clear communication about it. Veritasium did a piece about it for explaining for layman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThey need to squash the idea that corporations, foreign ones no less, have speech that's protected. If internet platforms do have speech then they should be liable for it.
- sixothree 2y agoI have a hard time believing that this supreme court, congress, or presidency, will have any interest in taking away corporate speech rights.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoOverturning Citizen's United would be sweet.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoSection 230 as well
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThe point of Citizens United was that American citizens don't lose their rights to speech if they organize together. What limits do you think are appropriate to individual speech when people get organized?
- bryanlarsen 2y agoI reject the notion that money is protected speech. Individuals can spend unlimited amounts of time and words on a campaign.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoUnlimited time and unlimited words seem to have little utility if you can't get them in front of others. You can write a book or pamphlet, but it is little use if you cant pay to publish it.
- xyzzy4747 2y agoCongress plus the President's signing authority have massive power and broad latitude to make decisions. I don't think TikTok stands a chance really. I wonder if there is a place I could bet on it.
- codezero 2y agoYou can bet on this on Polymarket.
- henning 2y ago[flagged]
- dzonga 2y agobefore when I was naive - I thoughts courts were impartial or I believed they were. but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge or the judge's personal beliefs.
- packetlost 2y agoThat's pretty much always been the case, but it has never been more blatant than now.
- cogman10 2y agoEh, it was. The Lochner era was about the same as it is today. It was also arguably the same during the Warren court. The main thing that has changed is this court has decided that past rulings do not matter. That's what is going to really cause a lot of chaos in the courts as time goes on.
- throwaway48476 2y agoI suspect there are other cases where you would think the court overturning precedent was a good thing.
- cogman10 2y agoPrior to this court, the last time the court overturned precedent was Brown v Board of education. Historically the court has pretty much never overturned precedent. That's new with this court.
- throwaway48476 2y agoEither overturning precedent is acceptable or it isn't. It can't be acceptable but only when I agree with it.
- cogman10 2y ago
- mrandish 2y agoI haven't examined the specific assertions and supporting evidence (if any) the government has cited but I'm glad SCOTUS is taking a look at this. My sense is the allegations so far are pretty vague and masked behind a curtain of 'national security' secrecy. The government targeting a company like this is extraordinary and should require due process with supporting evidence. Unfortunately, details of allegations remaining secret due to claims of 'national security' has a poor historical track record of abuse.
- TheRealPomax 2y agoNow if only SCOTUS could still be trusted to actually do what's right by the spirit of the law for the good of the people.
- mfer 2y agoThe court isn't tasked with doing what right. Who defines what's "right"? The court is tasked with judging based on the laws at hand. If those laws are flawed or wrong but legal, it's upon congress to change the laws rather than the courts to decide right or wrong. The court should be focused on legal or illegal. This is how the separation of powers work in the US. When laws are "broken" we should be looking at congress.
- atmavatar 2y agoI think we can forgive anyone who expresses skepticism about the current court's adherence to the spirit and even the letter of the law after it created presidential immunity out of thin air in Trump v. United States, both because it ran afoul of the Supreme Court's tradition of issuing narrow rulings but also because there's literally nothing in the constitution about executive immunity. As there exists a grant of immunity for legislators (Article I, Section 6), it's clear the framers understood the concept but chose to exclude it for the president. It's like the current court took a look at all the vitriol over Citizens United being one of the worst decisions in history and went "hold my beer". That said, the present issue of TikTok seems like an open-and-shut first amendment case, regardless whether it is ultimately a tool for influence operations by a hostile foreign power. The price we pay for freedom of speech is that it enables bad faith actors as well.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42340959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42340959 TikTok Asks Supreme Court to Block Law Banning Its U.S. Operations https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42436587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42436587 US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42427132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42427132
- webdoodle 2y agoWhat is the difference with Reddit? Tencent/Jack Ma is still a major shareholder, and listed as a director, giving him special access to Reddit's internals.
- stonesthrowaway 2y agoTrump said he'd save tik tok and if he does, he should be allowed to run for a 3rd term because he'd win easily.