TikTok ban bill in US faces changes after ByteDance spent $100M on lobbying

Re:TikTok ban bill in US faces changes after ByteDance spent... by cheriot on Thursday July 13, 2023 @02:11PM (#36713619)

TikTok, like any other product with user driven content is using Section 230 to disavow responsibility for the content on their app.

If it's not TikTok's speech how can they claim the first amendment? The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok ban bill in US faces changes after ByteDance spent... by pessimizer on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:21PM (#36714674)

> The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.

This is something you have to argue, not something that you can just declare. And the "just as easily" is where you're going to run into a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok ban bill in US faces changes after ByteDance spent... by cheriot on Thursday July 13, 2023 @05:45PM (#36716471)

I mean, short form video is available on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and those are just the ones I know about. How is having one less option impacting someone's ability to speak?

"People use a product to speak therefor the product cannot be regulated" is not a claim I'd heard before the TikTok debate. Seems to contradict previous interpretations of the first amendment that allowed the regulation of cable, TV broadcast, and radio.

[ Parent | on HN ]