News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by brookst on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @04:18PM (#39696899)
I’m not usually a slippery slope person, but if we’re outlawing content based on who owns the creator or transmitter, things get ugly quick.
Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by zachmu on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @04:40PM (#39697177)
It's not even content per se, it's much more insidious than that.

The comment I originally replied to likened tiktok to a printing press, but that's not quite right.

Imagine a printing press owned by an enemy that would subtly manipulate the text of whatever you tried to print. Or maybe it would omit entire articles from certain recipients of the newspaper, or reorganize the page layout to emphasize different things than the editor intended.

We wouldn't allow this hypothetical printing press controlled by a hostile foreign government to be sold in the US, we would be crazy to.

Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by brookst on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @05:57PM (#39698067)
Actually, yes, we would allow such a thing. Plenty of our news organizations are foreign – owned, and many of them are very elegant to your hypothetical printing press. The US simply doesn’t have the constitutional or legal framework to regulate content reproduction for ideological reasons.
Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by true_religion on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @04:33PM (#39697091)
A rule that hostile nations can’t own communication platforms in your country isn’t a slippery slope.

The US is widely against even having its own government own communication platforms.

Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by mannerheim on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @07:44PM (#39698955)
The content is not what is being outlawed, only the distribution mechanism. ISIS wouldn't be allowed to own a publishing company in America; nobody thinks that somehow curtails freedom of speech. If somebody so chooses, they could distribute content from ISIS, and restrictions on that would indeed be a restriction on speech. But it wouldn't be a restriction to make it illegal to give money to ISIS.
Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by chii on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @10:56PM (#39700147)
that's because ISIS is a terrorist organization.

So if you want to make the same argument, you will have to declare china's CCP to be a terrorist organization - and all of the legal implications that entails.

Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by mannerheim on Thursday March 14, 2024 @01:48AM (#39700906)
That's not a constitutional requirement. There's no law that says the government can only do this to terrorists. In fact, even if somebody is a terrorist, if they're American, it would still be unconstitutional to deprive their freedom of speech. ByteDance, as a foreign entity, enjoys no such protection.
Re:House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner... by philwelch on Wednesday March 13, 2024 @04:40PM (#39697176)
“On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Activities_in...)