4 ms·

Sure but what would that have to do with this action here? TikTok isn’t being banned because of free speech or not but because the usage of their algorithms a

Sure but what would that have to do with this action here? TikTok isn’t being banned because of free speech or not but because the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. China has recognized this as a threat and as such has banned foreign adversary social media companies from operating within its borders. Likewise the United States has recognized that this is a serious threat as well and has sought to do the same. Both countries claim to want to defend their systems of governments so it stands to reason they are just taking reciprocal actions here. The “free speech” angle is just Chinese propaganda. We stop businesses from operating in the United States all the time and sanction companies and stop them from doing business within our financial network all the time. TikTok is just some random company and we can stop it from doing business here. Free speech isn’t a meaningful discussion point here.

ch4s3 2y ago
The US also has an enshrined freedom of association, and I personally believe the association rights of those users is being violated. Moreover it seems like security theater.
- ericmay 2y ago
  No we don't - and we stop free associations all the time. I can't call up my non-existent buddies in Russia and say hey you guys need weapons? Well I'll sell them to you. We ban NVIDIA from selling advanced chips to China or North Korea. We prohibit US citizens from bribing officials in countries like Mexico for permits. > Moreover it seems like security theater. Meh. At a minimum it's just an economic reciprocation. If China doesn't allow our wildly successful social media companies to operate in China, we can as a matter of trade decide to stop their wildly successful social media company from operating in our country.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    You can call them up and just chat or go have tea with them. The crime there is evading a weapons sanction. Controlling weapons sales isn’t an infringement on 1a association rights. That’s a stupid trade policy.
    - ericmay 2y ago
      What are First Amendment Association rights?
      - cherry_tree 2y ago
        This is low effort, you couldn’t google that exact phrase rather than putting it in as a comment? https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-association.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-... > Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958): >"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for advancements of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech."
        ericmay 2y ago
        Please don't accuse people of engaging in "low effort" comments. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. You can see that I've actually written quite a few very good and well-thought responses to discussion points raised by others. It's anything but low effort. In a discussion where the First Amendment related to speech is at the center of the discussion, it's important for people to define what they mean by First Amendment Association versus Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment, especially when the discussion is primarily framed as an issue relating to Freedom of Speech. If someone is asking for clarification of what someone else means, that adds to the discussion, it doesn't detract from it. We can't discuss things if people are unwilling to explain what they mean, particularly within context. To that end, I'd encourage you to read the section on Limits on the Freedom of Association in the article you provided to see why that line of reasoning doesn't apply here.
        cherry_tree 2y ago
        You are defending > What are First Amendment Association rights? As a substantive comment that adds meaningfully to the conversation? You think people believe you were asking the parent for clarification on their personal definition or usage of a word by broadly asking “what is x?” Or are you suggesting due to you having other substantive comments elsewhere you are due the right to make unsubstantial comments that do not increase the level of the discussion? I think you are being overly argumentative throughout the thread, the example I singled out being exceptionally bad.
crummy 2y ago
> but because the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues Is that the case or is that just assumed what the government means when they say issues of national security? I thought they meant our devices could be hacked by malicious code in TikTok apps.
throw310822 2y ago
> the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. Which, if true, means that the US has been influencing the rest of the world for the past 20 years through all the other social networks.
- pjerem 2y ago
  How is that even questionable ?
keybored 2y ago
> TikTok isn’t being banned because of free speech or not but because the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. China has recognized this as a threat and as such has banned foreign adversary social media companies from operating within its borders. The “personal freedom” part would be most immediately salient here. Free speech wouldn’t apply if the app wasn’t in use already. But so many millions of Americans use the app already that it easily is about free speech as well.
- redwall_hp 2y ago
  I can't get over how widely accepted this paternalistic thinking is. "People might be viewing and think in the wrong things and must be stopped!" It's textbook censorship, with a bunch of legal tap dancing to attempt to justify it against the obvious unconstitutionality. We can hardly claim to have a democracy while acting like the population at large needs to be controlled in such a way. It's contradictory.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    As a society we just get to decide that. We can simultaneously be a democracy and also prohibit people from doing things. We can even be hypocritical. It's great! There's nothing contradictory about it because living in a democratic society doesn't mean that you have free reign to do anything that you want.
    - scarecrowbob 2y ago
      Hell, yall can put people in concentration camps, enslave folks, summarily execute them. It's great. /s Look: I live next to a reservation, where the US gov committed war crimes. There's a fort up the hill a quarter mile up from where I am, which was a "residential school" where the US gov put kidnapped children to "educate them". You are 100% right that democracy can coexist with all manner of depravity. We get it, yall can happily do enact horrors you feel like enacting on the rest of us and still enjoy feeling smug that we don't like it. But that fact means that something being "democratic" does not mean that we should respect what you do just because you have a veneer of democracy across it. I am profoundly grateful I have so many greater crimes commited by the US to contextualize what, in the big scheme of things, is a meaningless and goofy action. If I didn't know that they were spearheading the literal ecocide of the planet while incarcerating more people than have every been locked up, while simultaniously funding a genocide in Israel, I'd probably feel like this is some kind of espeically bad thing. But it's not; it barely even registers once you start looking at the millions of people that the US has directly murdered in the last 250 years. But It's Great! (tm)
tveita 2y ago
> the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. Yes, speech does that. "The algorithm" is curation but the content we are talking about is mostly Americans talking to other Americans. The goal is to control and suppress that communication. There are perfectly valid arguments to ban TikTok. And hey, there are arguments to be made that free speech shouldn't be absolute. But that doesn't fit into the American self image, so the argument must be obscured to reduce the dissonance. Your argument in particular maps perfectly to "Some kinds of speech are dangerous and people must be protected from them."
- ericmay 2y ago
  My argument (mostly) is that TikTok is just a random company that we permitted to do business in the United States and we can revoke that permission at any time as it suits our needs and laws. TikTok sells advertisements and people talk about those advertisements. That's all it does. Whether people share memes or communicate American to American isn't material. We know this is true because a company with the same features and products can be shut down if it's discovered that the same company engaged in other illegal activities (let's say money laundering or human trafficking to make it clear) and so someone's First Amendment rights would be abridged by the shut down of the company. TikTok is just in the same scenario and has now found itself afoul of US laws and regulations and has to adjust by selling itself or it can exit the market. The other thing here is that you'd have to convincingly argue that people who have never used TikTok (me for example) have now had their First Amendment rights violated, but there has been no change in my First Amendment rights. I can still use my freedom of speech as I could before.
kalleboo 2y ago
At least I hope this drives the EU to ban the use of X in their territory for the same reasons as the TikTok ban in the US. The owner is part of the incoming regime, and has been explicit about wanting to influence European elections.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  this is exactly what should happen if EU had the balls
  - ericmay 2y ago
    Why not ban both? The world would be better off for it anyway.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      I am all for it!

ch4s3 2y ago

The US also has an enshrined freedom of association, and I personally believe the association rights of those users is being violated. Moreover it seems like security theater.

ericmay 2y ago
No we don't - and we stop free associations all the time. I can't call up my non-existent buddies in Russia and say hey you guys need weapons? Well I'll sell them to you. We ban NVIDIA from selling advanced chips to China or North Korea. We prohibit US citizens from bribing officials in countries like Mexico for permits. > Moreover it seems like security theater. Meh. At a minimum it's just an economic reciprocation. If China doesn't allow our wildly successful social media companies to operate in China, we can as a matter of trade decide to stop their wildly successful social media company from operating in our country.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  You can call them up and just chat or go have tea with them. The crime there is evading a weapons sanction. Controlling weapons sales isn’t an infringement on 1a association rights. That’s a stupid trade policy.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    What are First Amendment Association rights?
    - cherry_tree 2y ago
      This is low effort, you couldn’t google that exact phrase rather than putting it in as a comment? https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-association.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-... > Supreme Court wrote in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958): >"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for advancements of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech."
      - ericmay 2y ago
        Please don't accuse people of engaging in "low effort" comments. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. You can see that I've actually written quite a few very good and well-thought responses to discussion points raised by others. It's anything but low effort. In a discussion where the First Amendment related to speech is at the center of the discussion, it's important for people to define what they mean by First Amendment Association versus Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment, especially when the discussion is primarily framed as an issue relating to Freedom of Speech. If someone is asking for clarification of what someone else means, that adds to the discussion, it doesn't detract from it. We can't discuss things if people are unwilling to explain what they mean, particularly within context. To that end, I'd encourage you to read the section on Limits on the Freedom of Association in the article you provided to see why that line of reasoning doesn't apply here.
        cherry_tree 2y ago
        You are defending > What are First Amendment Association rights? As a substantive comment that adds meaningfully to the conversation? You think people believe you were asking the parent for clarification on their personal definition or usage of a word by broadly asking “what is x?” Or are you suggesting due to you having other substantive comments elsewhere you are due the right to make unsubstantial comments that do not increase the level of the discussion? I think you are being overly argumentative throughout the thread, the example I singled out being exceptionally bad.

crummy 2y ago

> but because the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues Is that the case or is that just assumed what the government means when they say issues of national security? I thought they meant our devices could be hacked by malicious code in TikTok apps.

throw310822 2y ago

> the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. Which, if true, means that the US has been influencing the rest of the world for the past 20 years through all the other social networks.

pjerem 2y ago
How is that even questionable ?

keybored 2y ago

> TikTok isn’t being banned because of free speech or not but because the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. China has recognized this as a threat and as such has banned foreign adversary social media companies from operating within its borders. The “personal freedom” part would be most immediately salient here. Free speech wouldn’t apply if the app wasn’t in use already. But so many millions of Americans use the app already that it easily is about free speech as well.

redwall_hp 2y ago
I can't get over how widely accepted this paternalistic thinking is. "People might be viewing and think in the wrong things and must be stopped!" It's textbook censorship, with a bunch of legal tap dancing to attempt to justify it against the obvious unconstitutionality. We can hardly claim to have a democracy while acting like the population at large needs to be controlled in such a way. It's contradictory.
- ericmay 2y ago
  As a society we just get to decide that. We can simultaneously be a democracy and also prohibit people from doing things. We can even be hypocritical. It's great! There's nothing contradictory about it because living in a democratic society doesn't mean that you have free reign to do anything that you want.
  - scarecrowbob 2y ago
    Hell, yall can put people in concentration camps, enslave folks, summarily execute them. It's great. /s Look: I live next to a reservation, where the US gov committed war crimes. There's a fort up the hill a quarter mile up from where I am, which was a "residential school" where the US gov put kidnapped children to "educate them". You are 100% right that democracy can coexist with all manner of depravity. We get it, yall can happily do enact horrors you feel like enacting on the rest of us and still enjoy feeling smug that we don't like it. But that fact means that something being "democratic" does not mean that we should respect what you do just because you have a veneer of democracy across it. I am profoundly grateful I have so many greater crimes commited by the US to contextualize what, in the big scheme of things, is a meaningless and goofy action. If I didn't know that they were spearheading the literal ecocide of the planet while incarcerating more people than have every been locked up, while simultaniously funding a genocide in Israel, I'd probably feel like this is some kind of espeically bad thing. But it's not; it barely even registers once you start looking at the millions of people that the US has directly murdered in the last 250 years. But It's Great! (tm)

tveita 2y ago

> the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. Yes, speech does that. "The algorithm" is curation but the content we are talking about is mostly Americans talking to other Americans. The goal is to control and suppress that communication. There are perfectly valid arguments to ban TikTok. And hey, there are arguments to be made that free speech shouldn't be absolute. But that doesn't fit into the American self image, so the argument must be obscured to reduce the dissonance. Your argument in particular maps perfectly to "Some kinds of speech are dangerous and people must be protected from them."

ericmay 2y ago
My argument (mostly) is that TikTok is just a random company that we permitted to do business in the United States and we can revoke that permission at any time as it suits our needs and laws. TikTok sells advertisements and people talk about those advertisements. That's all it does. Whether people share memes or communicate American to American isn't material. We know this is true because a company with the same features and products can be shut down if it's discovered that the same company engaged in other illegal activities (let's say money laundering or human trafficking to make it clear) and so someone's First Amendment rights would be abridged by the shut down of the company. TikTok is just in the same scenario and has now found itself afoul of US laws and regulations and has to adjust by selling itself or it can exit the market. The other thing here is that you'd have to convincingly argue that people who have never used TikTok (me for example) have now had their First Amendment rights violated, but there has been no change in my First Amendment rights. I can still use my freedom of speech as I could before.

kalleboo 2y ago

At least I hope this drives the EU to ban the use of X in their territory for the same reasons as the TikTok ban in the US. The owner is part of the incoming regime, and has been explicit about wanting to influence European elections.

bdangubic 2y ago
this is exactly what should happen if EU had the balls
- ericmay 2y ago
  Why not ban both? The world would be better off for it anyway.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I am all for it!