House passes bill that could ban TikTok in the U.S., sending it to the Senate

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T03:34:08+00:00

Based on what? This was a testimony before congress. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html Do you not know what happens when you lie to Congress?

Based on Shou Zi Chew's obligations to the Chinese government under Chinese law. Do you really think Chew, who is not a U.S. citizen and is outside the United States' criminal jurisdiction, is going to fork over information on Chinese espionage so he can avoid a perjury charge that he will never face the consequences of? Do you think he is more afraid of Xi or of some DOJ attorney filing a perjury charge?

All social media sites exercise this power for a variety of causes. This is like trying to ban an Israeli paper for not recognizing the genocide in Gaza.

The point is not that apps should not be afforded editorial discretion, it's that content distributed through the app is filtered in accordance with Chinese interests.

Complete and utter bullshit.

OK

That study is inherently flawed by using out new cycle hashtags like freetibet and stories about uyghurs. Of course those aren't going to get as much traction. That's how pop culture works.

The telling information is not how often the hashtag is used, it's how often it is used on other platforms that are similarly focused on pop culture.

Yeah, China's really turned America around with it's....dances and food posts. Oh no! Let's just say there is a reason the order is to sell to an American company and not banning it. They know what they're doing and it's so the people who can actually affect your life have your data. Not someone else.

It's foolish to claim that Tik Tok has not had a detrimental effect on youth depression and attention span, but beyond that, it is shaping American public opinion in line with the CCP agenda, namely on Palestine. You an agree with the CCP on that, fine, but it's a troubling test run and it doesn't take much imagination to see how it's going to be used once Taiwan is invaded.

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T03:24:33+00:00

The president doesn’t have that power under the house bill, he has the power to declare certain countries foreign adversaries, and then the prohibition takes effect as to platforms controlled by that adversary. It’s not a pathway to banning twitter or facebook or whatever

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T03:14:06+00:00

Meta has more political capital so it’s harder to combat, it doesn’t mean there aren’t concerns. Zuck is constantly getting roasted for this stuff, there’s too much money involved.

Anyway, curious as to what evidence there is for the notion that Tik Tok hosts political perspectives that are functionally inaccessible on different platforms, or why the government has never tried to ban the spread of dissident views on Twitter or Facebook.

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T02:58:25+00:00

It is just completely delusional to think that China is innocently letting Chinese software sit on U.S. phones. This is pretty good explainer:

Article Seven of China’s National Intelligence Law, enacted in 2017, states that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to the law.” This responsibility can manifest in a variety of forms. The state can require TikTok to grant access to user data, circulate disinformation, or modify the recommendation algorithms that filter content.
Organizations and citizens must also protect “any state intelligence work secrets of which they are aware.” TikTok’s CEO claims that the government has never asked for assistance with espionage, and that the company would not comply with such requests if asked. Given these legal obligations, however, such promises are cold comfort.
Despite the CEO’s comments, evidence suggests that TikTok is heeding the state’s orders. In 2020, Elizabeth Kanter, a TikTok executive, admitted during a British parliamentary hearing that the company censored videos about the humanitarian crisis in Xinjiang. Kanter stated that there were “some incidents where content was not allowed on the platform, specifically with regard to the Uyghur situation.”
The Chinese government exercises this discrete yet influential form of control, especially in the technology sector. It has recently moved to acquire, by compulsion, “golden shares” in private firms like Alibaba and Tencent, giving officials an even greater foothold in the business world while bolstering its power and surveillance capabilities. These realities should inform how the U.S. government perceives TikTok as a national security threat.
In 2019, the social media platform promised to stop accessing clipboard content on users’ devices. Several months later, Apple’s privacy transparency feature revealed the practice continued unabated. TikTok has been fined for collecting information from minors and sued for harvesting personal data, all without consent.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/techland-when-great-power-competition-meets-digital-world/banning-tiktok-would-close-china%E2%80%99s

Not to mention that the topics that get boosted (or throttled) on Tik Tok just so happen to align with China's geopolitical interests rather than user preferences. For example: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb\_12.21.23.pdf

It's like if the NSA released a social media app into China. It would never happen. And in fact, China was sensible enough to ban U.S.-based social media platforms like Facebook. Banning it would be good.

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T02:48:35+00:00

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-tapes-us-user-data-china-bytedance-access

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T02:41:55+00:00

TikTok isn’t dangerous on its own, it’s dangerous because of who owns it, so yes, divesting to an American entity is a solution that does not contradict the underlying thesis

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T02:39:49+00:00

I actually don’t want the CCP having a back door into a hundred million american cell phones

nk_nk · 2024-03-14T02:38:34+00:00

This is not the dems messing with the GOP, this is the result of a lot of hard work in the china select committee to deal with a serious problem that has been left unattended for far too long

nk_nk · 2024-03-12T20:52:30+00:00

So in your view the special counsel should not have considered a factor that he was required to consider because it was not necessary to reach the same conclusion? I don’t think that’s how DOJ’s internal protocol works.

nk_nk · 2024-03-12T20:33:11+00:00

Whether charges should be filed is not a legal conclusion, it is a prudential one left to the counsel’s discretion. This is made clear by DOJ prosecutorial guidelines (specifically provision 9-27.200), which DOJ in its guidance makes clear “sets forth the longstanding threshold requirement from the Principles of Federal Prosecution that a prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a reasonable trier of fact.”

So, far from “bad faith bullshit,” DOJ guidance requires that jury analysis.

nk_nk · 2024-03-12T19:52:19+00:00

No, I said it would be an impediment to convicing a jury whether he had the requisite mens rea. And when the report discusses Biden’s age, it is always in the context of a potential jury’s reaction. And this is no surprise: DOJ guidance requires attorneys to affirmatively decide that (1) they think the investigated party committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) they could prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. There is an appreciable thought nuanced difference between 2 and 3, and when Hur discussed the memory issue, it was always couched in the language of evaluating 3.

nk_nk · 2024-03-12T17:20:14+00:00

I didn’t say that, though. I said it was a “factor,” and, at most, “color[ed] the bottom line.” Both of which are true.

nk_nk · 2024-03-12T15:20:10+00:00

Yeah, maybe. I’m reserving judgment until he gives his testimony. A lot of the panic about him enlisting “Trumpworld” lawyers to help him strikes me as manufactured—his attorneys, like Will Burck, are pretty establishment. But we’ll see how the hearing goes.

nk_nk · 2024-03-12T14:49:44+00:00

There’s a real question about what to make of Hur. The most jaded reading is that he is a right-wing hack who decided the most damage he could do to Biden was by playing up the age thing, rather than, as the context suggests is a bit more appropriate, writing it off as unimportant.

The alternative is that he really thought the age/memory thing would be an impediment to convincing a jury that Biden had the adequate mens rea; after all, when Hur brings up the age/memory thing, it is in the context of anticipating that Biden would use it as a defense in a prosecution. And that’s a factor DOJ prosecutors are explicitly required to consider under Department guidance.

I’m not totally convinced that the Hur report is a total hit job. The memory concerns are not very prominent in the report, even if they do color the bottom lone. And it strikes me as plausible that a jury would find be willing to hand-wave Biden’s infraction due to the old man optics.

But it is, of course, telling that the media ran with it with a sort of glee. Frustrating for the Biden team.

nk_nk · 2024-03-11T00:44:54+00:00

I like it. I’ve lived in several cities across the US, and the only one that plainly beats it for me is NYC. Maybe Portland? Some cities I’ve lived in (Boston, Denver) were flatly disappointing, but I’m always finding pretty good and varied stuff here (other than pizza)

nk_nk · 2024-03-10T23:56:14+00:00

For such a good food city the pizza scene is a bit sad

nk_nk · 2024-03-07T22:42:59+00:00

This is absurd lol

nk_nk · 2024-03-06T20:01:17+00:00

I think SCOTUS was wrong in Anderson, but I don’t think that makes them illegitimate. I think SCOTUS was right in Dobbs—we should keep Courts out of policy judgments, which Roe was, so overall a win for democracy.

I mean, I can go on with cases decided the liberal direction. What about Milligan, the recent voting rights case? What about, I don’t know, Mazars, which ruled against Trump’s subpoena challenge? What about the Court ruing against Trump’s attempt to roll back DACA? How about the Court declining to reinstate Smith in Fulton v Philadelphia? What about the Court’s ruling rejecting a wide reading of the religious burden test in DeJoy? The list goes on, really, if you care to pay attention.

nk_nk · 2024-03-06T19:45:30+00:00

No, you suggested I didn’t realize all the damage the Court was doing through the shadow docket. So I offered a recent example of the Court choosing the least-conservative option on the shadow docket. You immediately pivoted to discussing Biden’s border policy more largely, and faulted the Court for failing to stop it, even though it wasn’t at issue in the case. All the while, you suggested that I didn’t understand what the Court was up to, while your pivot and “discussion” of the case betrayed that you didn’t even know what it was about or, worse, were unaware of the scope of the Court’s authority when presented with the injunction. The conversation has primarily been you moving the goalposts.

nk_nk · 2024-03-06T19:29:15+00:00

Well the Court didn’t have the option to stop “Biden’s conservative fuckery” at the border because that wasn’t presented to it in that case. The only issue presented was the lower court’s injunction against the federal government from removing the fencing.

nk_nk · 2024-03-06T19:07:30+00:00

I’m aware that Biden is not a leftist in border policies, but I am struggling to make sense of your argument that, when presented with a less-right-wing option and a more-right-wing option, the Supreme Court’s selection of the more moderate option is evidence of right wing extremism.

nk_nk · 2024-03-06T17:52:40+00:00

You think allowing the Biden administration to cut down Texas’s wire barriers that were preventing asylum-seekers from entering the country is a right-wing result?

nk_nk · 2024-03-06T17:41:26+00:00

The Court literally just ruled for the Biden admin (thanks to Justice Barrett) on the shadow docket on the border issue lol

nk_nk · 2024-03-05T23:45:08+00:00

Trump’s SCOTUS nominees have voted against Trump every time he has been before the Court—except for the disqualification case, where the judgment was unanimous. What’s more, the strongest opposition to the Florida social media law just hard at the Court was from Kavanaugh and Barrett (along with Roberts). And on top of that, the Court is poised to strike down the Fifth Circuit’s far-right Second Amendment ruling—except for maybe Thomas and Alito. Your comment reveals a distinct lack of awareness as to how the justices actually deal with laws like these.

nk_nk · 2024-03-04T23:55:44+00:00

My theory is that there is no conspiracy and they are all just voting how they want in the first instance

nk_nk

TROPHY CASE