7 ms·

Excellent news. And all social media should be blocked until you are 16+

vkou 2y ago
Social networks in general should be nation-specific, to ensure that only domestic enemies of the people and similar bad actors can take advantage of them. Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to
  - wk_end 2y ago
    IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it. Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
      - vkou 2y ago
        Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed. Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc. If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
        dartos 2y ago
        > why should their ideas be let in through a social network? Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country? Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population. Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax. What does that government do? They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country. Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.
      - gpm 2y ago
        The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient. > The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”). > Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.
    - smogcutter 2y ago
      You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity). It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
      - ericjmorey 2y ago
        What's written and what's enforced often don't align.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Obligatory IANAL. The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#People_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Where_the_Constitution_is_legally_effective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
        hn_acker 2y ago
        > The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    This doesn't pass the smell test.
- zztop44 2y ago
  It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation. Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that Americans might be particularly blind to. Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not. If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.
    - mcmcmc 2y ago
      So essentially you are advocating for the Great Firewall of China. Would you ban VPNs as well?
      - vkou 2y ago
        All free countries control and censor broadcast media, but most don't do it for unicast communication.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        If foreign interference in domestic politics is a concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned communication channels operating within you. They have every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests. TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends. This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.
  - 2y ago
- troq13 2y ago
  Funny how the decline of American hegemony over social media coincides with Americans arguing social media should be nation-specific.
triyambakam 2y ago
That should be regulated by parents. If the government does it it means needing a digital id
- goda90 2y ago
  Not that the government would ever do this, but it is technically feasible for them to distribute anonymous digital IDs that verify age without allowing the user to be tracked or identified.
  - elzbardico 2y ago
    Technically feasible? yes. But why would the intelligence/military blob do things this way? Haven't they proved over and over that they will use any opportunity to spy on as much people as possible?
  - plorg 2y ago
    Once the government is issuing digital IDs to grant access to speech you can split that hair however you want I think it's a pretty uncomfortable idea for a lot of people.

vkou 2y ago

Social networks in general should be nation-specific, to ensure that only domestic enemies of the people and similar bad actors can take advantage of them. Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to
- wk_end 2y ago
  IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.
  - dartos 2y ago
    Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it. Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
    - vkou 2y ago
      Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed. Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc. If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
      - dartos 2y ago
        > why should their ideas be let in through a social network? Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country? Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population. Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax. What does that government do? They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country. Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.
    - gpm 2y ago
      The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient. > The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”). > Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.
  - smogcutter 2y ago
    You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity). It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
    - ericjmorey 2y ago
      What's written and what's enforced often don't align.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Obligatory IANAL. The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#People_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Where_the_Constitution_is_legally_effective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        > The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  This doesn't pass the smell test.
zztop44 2y ago
It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation. Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that Americans might be particularly blind to. Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not. If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.
  - mcmcmc 2y ago
    So essentially you are advocating for the Great Firewall of China. Would you ban VPNs as well?
    - vkou 2y ago
      All free countries control and censor broadcast media, but most don't do it for unicast communication.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      If foreign interference in domestic politics is a concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned communication channels operating within you. They have every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests. TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends. This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.
- 2y ago
troq13 2y ago
Funny how the decline of American hegemony over social media coincides with Americans arguing social media should be nation-specific.

triyambakam 2y ago

That should be regulated by parents. If the government does it it means needing a digital id

goda90 2y ago
Not that the government would ever do this, but it is technically feasible for them to distribute anonymous digital IDs that verify age without allowing the user to be tracked or identified.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  Technically feasible? yes. But why would the intelligence/military blob do things this way? Haven't they proved over and over that they will use any opportunity to spy on as much people as possible?
- plorg 2y ago
  Once the government is issuing digital IDs to grant access to speech you can split that hair however you want I think it's a pretty uncomfortable idea for a lot of people.