The hypocrisy is pretending it was all for "openess" and pointing fingers when other countries did exactly the same for their apps/social media.

Imagine same rhetoric by CCP adressing Facebook or YouTube.

This is so revisionist that it's funny. I vividly recall Facebook management celebrating their role in toppling regimes around the world for example the "Arab Spring": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media%27s_role_in_the_A... https://www.thewrap.com/facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-finding-jo...

I dare you find direct evidence of such quality that Tiktok is trying to do the same in the US.

There is some influence of course but it's not like their existence is at the blessing of the President.

Reuter reported this: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...

U.S. social media absolutely are controlled by the U.S. government, and we can, and have been able to get any user data we want from them.

Anyway, there's ways and means around getting tiktok from the app stores - especially thanks to efforts in European law that force both Apple and Android to open up their platforms so that consumers can do what they want with their devices.

You don't. This is not a legally protected right in any US jurisdiction. Period.

> This isn't about freedom of speech

Correct, because this isn't speech and "freedom of speech" does not mean what you think it does. The right to freedom of speech enumerated in the US constitution is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot punish its citizens for speaking out against the government. That's really all you're guaranteed. This has nothing to do with censorship, and in fact censorship in general is quite accepted in US law. You quite plainly do not have the right to unrestricted access to any information you want. No law even suggests that. Just for starters, we regularly ban books at the state level. In some places, you can be arrested for possessing certain materials. Perfectly constitutional.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or print anything with no consequences. See libel.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can read or posses any information you want. See classified materials, state secrets, illegal materials such as CSAM.

Freedom of speech means that the government can't put three generations of your family in a concentration camp because you tweeted once that the president sucks.

The problem is people switch between this definition of freedom of speech and the the more general version found in "on liberty" and other philosophical works. If youre talking about what the government is allowed to do sure use the first definition but this conversation started by talking about the second. By subtlety switching from "is this something that is good to do" to "is this something the government is allowed to do" youve derailed the conversation.

Philosophical freedom of speech is much more than what is enumerated in the constitution.

"Just for starters, we regularly ban books at the state level."

We really do not. We sometimes ban them from public school libraries, more usually at the local than state level. A bookstore can sell you any book you care to read including those with written depictions of child sexual abuse, with the limited exception that a locality might try to declare things obscene as being contrary to local standards of decency (but in practice in modern America rarely does).

"See libel."

Libel of public figures requires knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth and even then is a civil offense. There are vestigial criminal libel laws but it's doubtful they're constitutional and no one gets convicted. You can't go to jail for it and no one gets in trouble for reading it.

"See classified materials"

Unless you have a security clearance, you can read all the classified material you want if it's published. You can be punished for disclosing it if you have legal access to it, but not in practice for publishing it in peacetime (see the Pentagon Papers) and you cannot be restrained from publishing it before the fact unless doing so presents a clear and present danger to American public, a standard almost impossible to meet in peacetime.

"illegal materials such as CSAM"

In general you can read all the CSAM you want. You can't look at pictures or video.

Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal. It's not free speech.

Unless you don't think it's relevant to point out that a specific recurring point promoted by and paid for by Russian State media, under the disguise of "conservative free speech"?[0]

[0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/tim-...

I never accused anyone of being good or bad, I can't know that.

But what I do know is that this angle is used quite often by the same people who push Russian propaganda, like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson.

How would you approach someone who has been misinformed into believing free speech protects foreign state interference and that's ok, for example?

I am slightly on the side of the OP who originally made the claim but nobody should take anyone who throw's around the "paid shill" line seriously. You really are just labelling people you disagree with. Grow up.

First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical.

Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.

Not accurate, no, assuming that by misinformation you mean information that the author knows to be false. To name just two quite legally clear examples with no inherent connection to foreign states, US defamation law and US product liability law often create civil liability and occasionally even criminal liability for certain categories of knowingly false statements.

But, sure, spreading misinformation is not always illegal, and a blanket ban on that would indeed violate the First Amendment even though more targeted bans have been upheld as passing the relevant judicial tests for laws affecting First Amendment rights.

Such as?

To be more concrete about the defamation example:

Imagine someone has a grudge against you for some reason that doesn't involve any history of illegal behavior, like maybe your business won a lucrative contract that they wanted for their business. Motivated by a desire to hurt your personal reputation and cause you social ostracism, they tell all your friends and neighbors that you're a convicted murderer, when they know you've never even been accused of any kind of wrongdoing in any court whatsoever.

To the best of my knowledge, this is illegal defamation in every US state, and it's criminal in some of them. Although it's rarely prosecuted as a crime, criminal defamation laws have been upheld as constitutional in certain situations including ones that would cover this scenario (if the available evidence meets the criminal standard of proof in court). Civil defamation lawsuits are commonly enough made across the US, and under scenarios like this one, are also commonly enough won (or settled between the parties).

To be more concrete about the product liability example:

Imagine that you are a business selling a product and you write "safe for all ages" on the box, when you know it has components that are small enough for young children to choke on, but you lie about it on the packaging because your product really appeals to young children and you don't want to lose out on the profits from selling to their parents. If a 2-year-old then proceeds to choke on one of the components in the box, yes indeed there are lots of courts across the US that would award damages to the affected family, and maybe some courts that would find criminal liability as well although I'm less sure of that question.

Again, does NOBODY know what the first amendment covers???

If you yell FIRE in a crowded theatre (misinformation) that is not covered by the 1st amendment[1]. Please stop talking confidently about something you don't understand.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Edit: Schenck v. United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio but not completely, only limiting the scope. There are also many other examples that could be used to show that spreading misinformation is not blanket covered by 1a (defamation for example).

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...

But spreading foreign propaganda is indeed illegal despite that precedent if one does it as an agent of a foreign government within the FARA legal definition (which is reasonably implied by being on their payroll) and does not register with the US government as a foreign agent, aside from certain exceptions.

That’s the scenario which started this subthread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42430717

The new ruling makes it clear that misinformation is legal under 1A

Without substantiating your claim with links / references, this is an empty "appeal to authority" argument, aka weasel words.

There are a bunch and they are very easy to find.

Also, an appeal to a study is not an appeal to authority in any respect. I'm not sure you understand why an appeal to authority is not a valid argument?

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...

And before you claim "oh that's not a REAL study", remember to quote your sources since that is the standard you insist on.

Really? Because the U.S. government, in their own court filing, have openly admitted that there is no evidence of TikTok's wrong doing in terms of manipulating information.

I don't think it gets much more authoritative than U.S. government's own court filing.

The link you provided has been debunked over and over again. It was a paid-for study aimed to generate certain conclusion.

And its methodology is silly at best, insane at worst (uses U.S. social media company as a control group for neutrality on China lmao).

This is an ongoing investigation, but it's already well-documented. Not hypothetical. Now you may think that this is only happening in Romania, but in reality, similar events were uncovered in the US[1].

It seems you want to clear these platforms of any responsibility, and I think they have part of the responsibility. It's not just Tiktok but looks like it's a platform of choice.

> Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.

It is illegal if it is paid for foreign state and undeclared.

[0]https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/romania-tiktok-pr... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/tim-...

Good. Because ByteDance has never tried to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company. So that argument wouldn't matter even if there are evidence of them pushing Chinese propaganda.

We presumably live in a Democracy but this democracies voters cannot be trusted to read, view or engage with content that might undercut the preferred narratives of the mother country. Therefore, anyone arguing for this right must be under the communist spell or worse on the payroll.

Low IQ tbh

Here's very simple example to help you understand this: if you have someone on a foreign state payroll, they have to disclose they're being paid for by a foreign state, and people have the right to know that.[0]

You have the example of Tenet Media being paid by Russia Today to hire American right-wing influencers to promote Russian talking points, covertly - that's illegal.[0]

It just looks like people have a fundamental misunderstanding of a very basic concept about what Free Speech is.

Free Speech isn't the freedom to dupe voters, because voters may have the capacity to discern misinformation from information. Even if you go by your caustic remark, yes, a lot of voters can't discern misinformation. That's why there are laws in place.

[0]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/12/guerrilla-projects-...

Do not equate whatever perceived limits the US has with China's limits on free expression.

If we were even more on the same page generally, then the US would put its undesirable ethnic minorities in reeducation camps.

Countries pay Gazprom and Ukraine charges Gazprom for transit.

Life is not black and white.

See also https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now/

https://youtu.be/YcVSgYz5SJ8?t=7765

Maritime order (basically a trade alliance, if you join you have more chance to influence it, win-win) and the continental order (buffer zone, extractive/authoritarian, negative-sum).

Of course as the competition is getting fierce one seems to borrow from the other. (Russia is funding itself and its war from trade. And China sold market access in exchange for technology.) And the US is now transitioning from soft-power to pay up or you are out. (Balance of trade, NATO contributions, etc.)

there is a cost for maintaining the US hegemony, Taiwan is being used as an excuse to maximize such cost for the US - China gets to choose when and how to increase tensions, the US has to react accordingly and spend more and more borrowed resources as responses. that is the official policy, a smart one.

The claimed story is that Taiwan is worried if they abandon the "one warring China" policy and openly state they are Independent, that will aggravate China and cause them to push their claim harder, and maybe lead to war.

Taiwan having such a policy is directly because that's the policy China wants everyone else to claim. Notably, Taiwan has taken zero effort to produce a military capable of doing any over-water invasions, which would be absolutely necessary if they actually wanted to do that. Unless you think Taiwan would rely on the USA to invade China for it, which I do not think the US ever wants to do. Our explicit strategy is to own all the islands around China (including Taiwan) and basically blockade China in all but name.

China meanwhile DOES build a military to take over Taiwan, explicitly, including systems designed to sink our carriers and practice targets in the desert. Strictly speaking I'm not concerned about China wanting a viable means to sink our Navy, as China doesn't want to starve to death if we could blockade them, but the buildup around the capability to take Taiwan betrays that it is not a defensive posture.

No it really isn't, and it's certainly not hilarious. Taiwan's position is historic. The government of Taiwan literally used to be the government of the mainland.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-spy-agency-tapped-g...

Of course one has to differentiate between "friendly" and subordinate semi-protectorates.

Also a government of a country can change. Being raised in a communist Poland I was quite used to all government officials treating you quite famously badly. This was still pretty much in full swing around 2004 (many years after the all of Communism) when I emigrated to the UK. Then I went back, full time around 2019. Imagine my surprise when I had one of my first dealings with a tax office (I was registering my company for Vat online and I put in a wrong start date) and it wasn't through registered mail requesting I attend in person at so and so time (to wait 3 hours) and be told I'll be getting a fine. Nope, they rang me, on my phone, and asked if I can please amend it. So I thought, wow, they must have employed a new person who hasn't learned how to put people down properly yet. But then in the course of my business I dealt with social services and such and the same pattern repeated. Now, it is not all dancing cats and roses, the juidiciary is still pretty bad I'm told, but it's not so much about corruption these days, more about ineptitude, slowness and doing their own interpretation of the laws, which they aren't allowed to do in non-precedents system(they can continue mainly because of their independence - can't force people to actually obey the law if they are the law without turning it into a dictatorship, so waiting for them to retire seems to be the only option). So things are bit more nuanced than "all government is equally bad".

Not saying this like China is perfect, i just don't understand why people who seemingly aren't professional propagandists seem to have this "everything china does is bad" narrative in their heads. Like any great country, many horrible _and_ wonderful things have been done there but in the US we only talk about the horrible things and it warps everyone's view

Sorry can you point out where they are doing this? because banning tiktok certainly is not doing those things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

I mean that last one doesn't mention any "legally prohibited" whatnots, but if you were suspected of being a commie because of for example being known to read the wrong thing by the House Un-American Activities Committee you'd be in trouble. Definitely chilling effects.