4 ms·

Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some

Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some kind of signal.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
> “which would’ve led to the inescapable conclusion … had to be rejected as infringing … free speech” When the EFF sounds about as sane as a sovereign citizen… With friends like these, who needs enemies…
- schoen 2y ago
  I worked at EFF for twenty years, and every iteration or incarnation of EFF would have said that it should be extraordinarily difficult for the government to prevent Americans from using foreign web sites or software. And that it should be extraordinarily difficult for the government to compel tech intermediaries to help block foreign sites or software. This would have been a bog-standard EFF position for the organization's entire existence. (I would say something even stronger than "extraordinarily difficult", but then I'd be on thinner ice.)
  - munchler 2y ago
    It required specific legislation to ban TikTok. I would say that's pretty extraordinary. I think even the EFF should admit that allowing the Chinese government to control a major American social media app is an unacceptable security risk.
    - hedora 2y ago
      The second paragraph of the EFF statement says the ban provides insufficient protection of US security.
      - munchler 2y ago
        > The United States’ foreign foes easily can steal, scrape, or buy Americans’ data by countless other means. True, but that's not the point. > Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. Sorry, that might've been true for old media, but social media is way more insidious.
        beepbooptheory 2y ago
        So is it that it's not antidemocratic now because of new media, or is it antidemocratic but thats ok because of new media?
        munchler 2y ago
        Probably the latter, if viewed narrowly, but the whole point is to preserve democracy in the end. This ban is the lesser of two evils. Is chemotherapy not unhealthy now because of cancer, or is it unhealthy but that’s OK because of cancer?
    - accrual 2y ago
      It's amazing that all three arms of the government can come together so quickly to ban an app, but we can't have affordable housing, public healthcare, a higher minimum wage, or send kids to school without bulletproof backpacks.
      - ok_dad 2y ago
        Stop talking about that or they'll ban HN next!
    - packetlost 2y ago
      Not only did it require specific legislation, but it had the near unanimous support of all 3 branches of the government (if you exclude the shifts in presidential opinion)
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I agree with the EFF on a lot of stuff. I don't believe in absolute _________ without considering life is virtually never that simple.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Signal of belief in an excessively strong state? Clarence Thomas is not actually conservative in the small government sense.
- ls612 2y ago
  Neil Gorsuch is though and he signed on too. He even said that while he thought the government had to prove a higher standard than the opinion required, it didn’t matter to the decision because the government in his mind had met that even higher standard anyway.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Neil “the President can use SEAL Team 6 to eliminate his political opponents” Gorsuch? He’s not a small government conservative, lol.
    - braiamp 2y ago
      Pss, dude, nobody is small government anything. They are just want the regulation to apply in a manner that they are content with.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Right, which is why "Justice XYZ agrees" does not (by itself) say anything at all about the moral or political valence of the decision.
      - EasyMark 2y ago
        I have met true-to-life anarchists that would be perfectly happy living in a cabin in the woods. At least that's their theory, I had my doubts about their survival skill in such cabin in the woods communities after a month or so. I know it has happened but it's exceedingly rarely successful
    - monocularvision 2y ago
twobitshifter 2y ago
The commerce clause has been used since the founding of the country for this sort of thing. I never saw a way for it to be called unconstitutional.
logicchains 2y ago
For most of US history people's access to information was controlled by a few powerful news/media corporations and the Supreme Court did nothing to stop that. It's no surprise that when we finally get a decentralised information transmission system not beholden to the elites, the Supreme Court doesn't want to lend it a hand.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  Social media algorithms are nuclear bombs for the mind. And they are beholden to whoever holds the detonator. It just happens that a lot of people are happy with China holding it. When the mind-reading algorithm provides each user with their own reality to live in, then we are talking about editorializing. And allowing a communist, anti-Western government direct control over that power does not seem reasonable. inb4 "better than my own government" - great, we agree that social media algorithms are a net negative to all society. Communications is great. Video is great. Social media algorithms controlled by rage-inducing profit seekers and governments is not great.
  - henrikschroder 2y ago
    > rage-inducing profit seekers That pretty accurately describes Twitter and Facebook these days. TikTok, not so much, which you would know if you had used the platform. (Or, you have used the platform, and you prefer rage-inducing crap, so it continues serving that to you) The proponents of the ban keep mentioning some kind of nefarious "communist" propaganda, and some kind of nefarious privacy data access, but I've yet to see someone show concrete examples of what that would look like. My TikTok feed contains a ton of funny cat videos, Europeans shitting on clueless American tourists, OF models hawking themselves, the ubiquitous dance videos, people making caricature cringe videos, and a bunch of viral meme videos. And a lady drinking Costco peach juice. Where's the propaganda? Not in my feed, that's for sure. Where's the rage-inducing bait? Not in my feed, that's for sure. What privacy data can the nefarious CCP access about me? That I like cat videos and memes?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

Given that the decision is unanimous just maybe it is in alignment with the constitution. If Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Jackson agree on something, that's some kind of signal.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

> “which would’ve led to the inescapable conclusion … had to be rejected as infringing … free speech” When the EFF sounds about as sane as a sovereign citizen… With friends like these, who needs enemies…

schoen 2y ago
I worked at EFF for twenty years, and every iteration or incarnation of EFF would have said that it should be extraordinarily difficult for the government to prevent Americans from using foreign web sites or software. And that it should be extraordinarily difficult for the government to compel tech intermediaries to help block foreign sites or software. This would have been a bog-standard EFF position for the organization's entire existence. (I would say something even stronger than "extraordinarily difficult", but then I'd be on thinner ice.)
- munchler 2y ago
  It required specific legislation to ban TikTok. I would say that's pretty extraordinary. I think even the EFF should admit that allowing the Chinese government to control a major American social media app is an unacceptable security risk.
  - hedora 2y ago
    The second paragraph of the EFF statement says the ban provides insufficient protection of US security.
    - munchler 2y ago
      > The United States’ foreign foes easily can steal, scrape, or buy Americans’ data by countless other means. True, but that's not the point. > Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. Sorry, that might've been true for old media, but social media is way more insidious.
      - beepbooptheory 2y ago
        So is it that it's not antidemocratic now because of new media, or is it antidemocratic but thats ok because of new media?
        munchler 2y ago
        Probably the latter, if viewed narrowly, but the whole point is to preserve democracy in the end. This ban is the lesser of two evils. Is chemotherapy not unhealthy now because of cancer, or is it unhealthy but that’s OK because of cancer?
  - accrual 2y ago
    It's amazing that all three arms of the government can come together so quickly to ban an app, but we can't have affordable housing, public healthcare, a higher minimum wage, or send kids to school without bulletproof backpacks.
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      Stop talking about that or they'll ban HN next!
  - packetlost 2y ago
    Not only did it require specific legislation, but it had the near unanimous support of all 3 branches of the government (if you exclude the shifts in presidential opinion)
EasyMark 2y ago
I agree with the EFF on a lot of stuff. I don't believe in absolute _________ without considering life is virtually never that simple.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Signal of belief in an excessively strong state? Clarence Thomas is not actually conservative in the small government sense.

ls612 2y ago
Neil Gorsuch is though and he signed on too. He even said that while he thought the government had to prove a higher standard than the opinion required, it didn’t matter to the decision because the government in his mind had met that even higher standard anyway.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Neil “the President can use SEAL Team 6 to eliminate his political opponents” Gorsuch? He’s not a small government conservative, lol.
  - braiamp 2y ago
    Pss, dude, nobody is small government anything. They are just want the regulation to apply in a manner that they are content with.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Right, which is why "Justice XYZ agrees" does not (by itself) say anything at all about the moral or political valence of the decision.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      I have met true-to-life anarchists that would be perfectly happy living in a cabin in the woods. At least that's their theory, I had my doubts about their survival skill in such cabin in the woods communities after a month or so. I know it has happened but it's exceedingly rarely successful
  - monocularvision 2y ago

twobitshifter 2y ago

The commerce clause has been used since the founding of the country for this sort of thing. I never saw a way for it to be called unconstitutional.

logicchains 2y ago

For most of US history people's access to information was controlled by a few powerful news/media corporations and the Supreme Court did nothing to stop that. It's no surprise that when we finally get a decentralised information transmission system not beholden to the elites, the Supreme Court doesn't want to lend it a hand.

unethical_ban 2y ago
Social media algorithms are nuclear bombs for the mind. And they are beholden to whoever holds the detonator. It just happens that a lot of people are happy with China holding it. When the mind-reading algorithm provides each user with their own reality to live in, then we are talking about editorializing. And allowing a communist, anti-Western government direct control over that power does not seem reasonable. inb4 "better than my own government" - great, we agree that social media algorithms are a net negative to all society. Communications is great. Video is great. Social media algorithms controlled by rage-inducing profit seekers and governments is not great.
- henrikschroder 2y ago
  > rage-inducing profit seekers That pretty accurately describes Twitter and Facebook these days. TikTok, not so much, which you would know if you had used the platform. (Or, you have used the platform, and you prefer rage-inducing crap, so it continues serving that to you) The proponents of the ban keep mentioning some kind of nefarious "communist" propaganda, and some kind of nefarious privacy data access, but I've yet to see someone show concrete examples of what that would look like. My TikTok feed contains a ton of funny cat videos, Europeans shitting on clueless American tourists, OF models hawking themselves, the ubiquitous dance videos, people making caricature cringe videos, and a bunch of viral meme videos. And a lady drinking Costco peach juice. Where's the propaganda? Not in my feed, that's for sure. Where's the rage-inducing bait? Not in my feed, that's for sure. What privacy data can the nefarious CCP access about me? That I like cat videos and memes?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]