5 ms·

I 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 t

I 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 ago
Now 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I 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.
    - TheRealPomax 2y ago
      It doesn't though: one can fully argue that tik tok is one of several platforms through which people can express themselves, which means no one's rights are being taken away by shutting down tik-tok. It would be an incredibly bad-faith decision, but watch them make it anyway. Similarly, tik tok can't argue that they're press, even if some of their users might use the platform as a news and news commentary outlet. Again, shutting down the platform doesn't prevent those folks from continuing to do so on another platform. There's, unfortunately, nothing open-and-shut about this case. Especially with a supreme court that seems quite keen on backing up the establishment.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    Fun fact: no. You're thinking of the regular courts. Unlike the regular courts, the supreme court specifically has the power to just go "nope, this law is now void" if they deem it unconstitutional, and fun fact: that constitution sure is open to interpretation, hoo boy. Imagine if a corrupt justice was allowed to just keep on ruling, that sure would make for a fair and just system. Like say someone who had to rule on cases involving their friends who bought them millions of dollars in gifts and instead of recusing themselves, take the case and rule in their friends' favor. And no way for the people to intervene. SCOTUS has serious problems.
- mrandish 2y ago
  Not to digress off-topic but as a long-time SCOTUS watcher and reader of opinions and dissents, I think it's worth highlighting that "the spirit of the law" and "for the good of the people" are highly subjective things on which reasonable people often disagree. Those broad concepts have in earlier eras been cited by supreme court justices to extend or limit laws instead of strictly interpreting what's written, including supporting slavery, denying civil rights and blocking women voting. SCOTUS was created to interpret the wording of the laws the legislative branch passes and to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of citizens as written in the constitution. Changing the purpose of the court to include concepts like justices choosing what is in "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people" as opposed to what the people's elected representatives actually wrote and voted for is a slippery slope. It might sound good but only if the majority of justices will always make subjective judgements you agree with. Those of us who disagree with some justices' opinions should want to hard limit SCOTUS to strict interpretation of laws as written and not including their personal beliefs on what might be "for the good of the people."
  - archagon 2y ago
    Except some members of the SCOTUS are quite blatantly corrupt: https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-us-supreme-court/ https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-...
    - mrandish 2y ago
      I haven't looked into those allegations myself but, if they're true, it strongly supports my belief the role of supreme court justices should be limited to strict interpretation of legislation as passed by our elected representatives and the constitution as written. While it's impossible to eliminate all subjective interpretation from the role of SCOTUS justices, the last thing we should want is any more latitude for injecting personal opinion or broad construction based on vague ideals like "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people".
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
- stronglikedan 2y ago
  They've been doing a great job for the last few years, so I don't expect them to stop now.
pizza 2y ago
The hysteria is reaching HUAC levels. You can read the statements from the congresspersons in support of the bill [0] and they all read like one variant or another of General Jack D Ripper in Dr. Strangelove quavering about how the communists want to sully our precious bodily fluids. Won’t someone think of the helplessly feeble median voter who cannot be entrusted to not let something dissenting from the Washington consensus not stymie my chance to harvest their vote.. woe is me.. /s If they believed Americans shouldn’t be surveilled then they should pass a law enshrining our right to freedom from surveillance with teeth to match. But they would never do that because that’s not really what this is about. Nor would they encourage smartphone manufacturers to better sandbox users from profiling by apps, nor would they pass laws placing restrictions on the seedy data broker industry, nor would they pass laws preventing telcos from selling your data to the data brokers. Nor would they pass laws that publicly refer to the USA’s own public influence campaigns in non-adversary countries (remember the SinoVax scandal [1] ? Where we seeded antivax sentiment on Facebook in the Philippines etc so that nobody would want to get the Chinese covid vaccine? Which probably actually led to people dying? I guess this type of story only has legs if it’s hypothetically plausible that our adversaries are doing it - not when we actually did it, smoking gun and everything) The additional irony now that there is a serious likelihood this incoming administration is going to be against the fluoridation of water too is not lost upon me.. [0] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/bills/bill-protect-americans-foreign-adversary-controlled-applications-including-tiktok https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/bills/bill-p... [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...
- qvrjuec 2y ago
  The issue isn't surveillance, it's the ability for China to 'put their thumb on the scale' of the black box algorithm responsible for populating every user's feed to emphasize or de-emphasize topics/ideas that are strategically beneficial to China, and bad for us. This is not hypothetical, this is happening, and has been happening. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/briefing/tiktok-ban-bill-congress.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/briefing/tiktok-ban-bill-...
  - 2y ago
penjelly 2y ago
they aren't masked behind national security, that IS the issue. China was asked to host data on US servers, so it garunteed they couldn't access the data, yet there's evidence Chinese employees were accessing the data. That's strike one. Now they have an app that can sway the public opinion of ages 8-30, by feeding them content that presents a certain perspective example: during the tiktok hearings in the past, on tiktok there were memes (probably boosted) that purposefully made lawmakers look stupid, even if they had reasonable questions. This swayed public opinion in itself. Also bonus, it gives access to some user data too. That's not to mention China doesn't allow a US based app like tiktok to exist in their version of the internet.
- ender341341 2y ago
  > That's not to mention China doesn't allow a US based app like tiktok to exist in their version of the internet. I feel like this should be more central to the argument than it has been, on equal footing to the national security issues. If they don't want non-Chinese social media running in China lets not let Chinese social media run here, tit-for-tat.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > on tiktok there were memes (probably boosted) that purposefully made lawmakers look stupid the text version of the same memes can be found here, on HN.

TheRealPomax 2y ago

Now 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 ago
The 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 ago
  I 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.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    It doesn't though: one can fully argue that tik tok is one of several platforms through which people can express themselves, which means no one's rights are being taken away by shutting down tik-tok. It would be an incredibly bad-faith decision, but watch them make it anyway. Similarly, tik tok can't argue that they're press, even if some of their users might use the platform as a news and news commentary outlet. Again, shutting down the platform doesn't prevent those folks from continuing to do so on another platform. There's, unfortunately, nothing open-and-shut about this case. Especially with a supreme court that seems quite keen on backing up the establishment.
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  Fun fact: no. You're thinking of the regular courts. Unlike the regular courts, the supreme court specifically has the power to just go "nope, this law is now void" if they deem it unconstitutional, and fun fact: that constitution sure is open to interpretation, hoo boy. Imagine if a corrupt justice was allowed to just keep on ruling, that sure would make for a fair and just system. Like say someone who had to rule on cases involving their friends who bought them millions of dollars in gifts and instead of recusing themselves, take the case and rule in their friends' favor. And no way for the people to intervene. SCOTUS has serious problems.
mrandish 2y ago
Not to digress off-topic but as a long-time SCOTUS watcher and reader of opinions and dissents, I think it's worth highlighting that "the spirit of the law" and "for the good of the people" are highly subjective things on which reasonable people often disagree. Those broad concepts have in earlier eras been cited by supreme court justices to extend or limit laws instead of strictly interpreting what's written, including supporting slavery, denying civil rights and blocking women voting. SCOTUS was created to interpret the wording of the laws the legislative branch passes and to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of citizens as written in the constitution. Changing the purpose of the court to include concepts like justices choosing what is in "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people" as opposed to what the people's elected representatives actually wrote and voted for is a slippery slope. It might sound good but only if the majority of justices will always make subjective judgements you agree with. Those of us who disagree with some justices' opinions should want to hard limit SCOTUS to strict interpretation of laws as written and not including their personal beliefs on what might be "for the good of the people."
- archagon 2y ago
  Except some members of the SCOTUS are quite blatantly corrupt: https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-us-supreme-court/ https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-...
  - mrandish 2y ago
    I haven't looked into those allegations myself but, if they're true, it strongly supports my belief the role of supreme court justices should be limited to strict interpretation of legislation as passed by our elected representatives and the constitution as written. While it's impossible to eliminate all subjective interpretation from the role of SCOTUS justices, the last thing we should want is any more latitude for injecting personal opinion or broad construction based on vague ideals like "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people".
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
stronglikedan 2y ago
They've been doing a great job for the last few years, so I don't expect them to stop now.

pizza 2y ago

The hysteria is reaching HUAC levels. You can read the statements from the congresspersons in support of the bill [0] and they all read like one variant or another of General Jack D Ripper in Dr. Strangelove quavering about how the communists want to sully our precious bodily fluids. Won’t someone think of the helplessly feeble median voter who cannot be entrusted to not let something dissenting from the Washington consensus not stymie my chance to harvest their vote.. woe is me.. /s If they believed Americans shouldn’t be surveilled then they should pass a law enshrining our right to freedom from surveillance with teeth to match. But they would never do that because that’s not really what this is about. Nor would they encourage smartphone manufacturers to better sandbox users from profiling by apps, nor would they pass laws placing restrictions on the seedy data broker industry, nor would they pass laws preventing telcos from selling your data to the data brokers. Nor would they pass laws that publicly refer to the USA’s own public influence campaigns in non-adversary countries (remember the SinoVax scandal [1] ? Where we seeded antivax sentiment on Facebook in the Philippines etc so that nobody would want to get the Chinese covid vaccine? Which probably actually led to people dying? I guess this type of story only has legs if it’s hypothetically plausible that our adversaries are doing it - not when we actually did it, smoking gun and everything) The additional irony now that there is a serious likelihood this incoming administration is going to be against the fluoridation of water too is not lost upon me.. [0] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/bills/bill-protect-americans-foreign-adversary-controlled-applications-including-tiktok https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/bills/bill-p... [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...

qvrjuec 2y ago
The issue isn't surveillance, it's the ability for China to 'put their thumb on the scale' of the black box algorithm responsible for populating every user's feed to emphasize or de-emphasize topics/ideas that are strategically beneficial to China, and bad for us. This is not hypothetical, this is happening, and has been happening. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/briefing/tiktok-ban-bill-congress.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/briefing/tiktok-ban-bill-...
- 2y ago

penjelly 2y ago

they aren't masked behind national security, that IS the issue. China was asked to host data on US servers, so it garunteed they couldn't access the data, yet there's evidence Chinese employees were accessing the data. That's strike one. Now they have an app that can sway the public opinion of ages 8-30, by feeding them content that presents a certain perspective example: during the tiktok hearings in the past, on tiktok there were memes (probably boosted) that purposefully made lawmakers look stupid, even if they had reasonable questions. This swayed public opinion in itself. Also bonus, it gives access to some user data too. That's not to mention China doesn't allow a US based app like tiktok to exist in their version of the internet.

ender341341 2y ago
> That's not to mention China doesn't allow a US based app like tiktok to exist in their version of the internet. I feel like this should be more central to the argument than it has been, on equal footing to the national security issues. If they don't want non-Chinese social media running in China lets not let Chinese social media run here, tit-for-tat.
meiraleal 2y ago
> on tiktok there were memes (probably boosted) that purposefully made lawmakers look stupid the text version of the same memes can be found here, on HN.