What about this ban is Hypocrisy? It seems perfectly in line with the freedoms given to American corporations operating in China (IE None.)
I'm not convinced the free speech concerns even apply when TikTok meticulously grooms the content offered on the platform. Who's speech is being infringed? The Chinese censors?
>Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans who use the platform
What rights? 1st amendment? Your speech isn't being curtailed, you just have to take it elsewhere. If you interpret this as a trade dispute everything looks fine. Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either.
I think your conception of rights is far too narrow.
If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights.
The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive.
> Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either.
It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want.
Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical way of looking at rights.
Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans.
The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
> I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights.
Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion.
>Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans.
So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties.
>The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".
>Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans".
> A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans".
No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion.
I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it.
On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective.
I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further.
> It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.
You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content.
> So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties.
Not always, and not by me.
What the parties accept is irrelevant. We (almost) all believe that one or both of them is fully evil. Almost nobody on the right or left thinks "their" party represents their views (except a vocal minority of Republicans).
> This is probably why you're being downvoted.
I expected to be downvoted heavily when I posted. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm willing to take the hit.
> When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights
I don't think that's true. Obviously, we have basically no legal rights anymore in America. The ones we do have are tiny procedural things, like Miranda rights. When it comes to legality, it's just a matter of asking if rule X will be enforced in way Y at this particular time, which will certainly not hold at a different time. The Federal government is free to regulate basically anything in basically any way it pleases.
I mean, can you name anything that actually, solidly, is a legal right, for Americans? Maybe free speech, but that is under heavy assault. I can't think of much else.
Banning TikTok may be a violation of the principle of free trade, however that is not an American right.
Many economists have successfully argued that free trade is overall a net gain, even if other countries do enact free trade themselves.
The problem with TikTok and China in general is it's not just about free trade. The Chinese government owns a significant part of each company and uses those companies/apps to gather intelligence. They also often do not enforce IP, which blurs the line between trade and theft.
The US is far from the only country floating a TikTok ban, so it’s difficult to believe this article’s very US centric explanation. If it’s about protecting Facebook, why do Japan and potentially Australia also believe there’s a legitimate threat? (I’m excluding India because they have other plausible reasons to want to mess with China.)
Dunno, but US govt is leaning on them in public and probably behind the scenes to encourage a ban. Pompeo called out an unnamed ally for not joining the US ban of Huawei in a recent speech. The protectionism isn’t purely monetary but also about retaining indirect control over communication platforms and infrastructure.
Sounds like classic Trump. Use the threat of a ban to force a policy change in American interests. Maybe bargain down Microsoft’s price for TikTok along the way.
TikTok’s user base deserves a parent company domiciled in the US and under American regulatory and financial purview.
I do hope I deserve better than that. I’d say Canada or Swiss. Now only if they could ban FB and make their own...
The slippery slope/trade wars has begun.
Is it really "hypocrisy" if China started it first, by banning American apps? If country A bans imports of widgets from country B, and country B retaliates with a similar ban, is it hypocrisy?
Careful. You’re spilling out ‘logic’ and ‘truths’ here that doesn’t fit WIRED’s narrative. Indeed Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat were banned in China long before TikTok even existed so Wired’s point of ‘hypocrisy’ really falls short at this.
China has other alternative social networks like LINE, Wechat to take their place but alongside the TikTok ban in India, they were also among the 58 apps banned too.
I guess they say it’s hypocrisy because it’s ‘Trump’ doing the ban. But when Biden started to tell his own staff to delete TikTok from their phones it’s apparent that it is more of a security concern than a ‘Trump embarrassment’ issue, such that they have less trust in Chinese-owned tech companies in general.
And remember that it's not just a matter of trust - we know, from people who've reverse engineered the app, that TikTok is engaging in extremely invasive data collection. It was just a month ago that they were caught copying the contents of your clipboard from the background!
24 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 65.2 ms ] threadI'm not convinced the free speech concerns even apply when TikTok meticulously grooms the content offered on the platform. Who's speech is being infringed? The Chinese censors?
More generally, violating one right of one American threatens all rights of all Americans.
TikTok should be banned if and only if it presents a military or intelligence threat.
What rights? 1st amendment? Your speech isn't being curtailed, you just have to take it elsewhere. If you interpret this as a trade dispute everything looks fine. Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either.
>also Americans who work there.
what rights are we talking about?
If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights.
The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive.
> Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either.
It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want.
Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical way of looking at rights.
Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans.
The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion.
>Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans.
So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties.
>The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.
This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".
Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans".
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
Also, regarding your other comment
> You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content.
It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion.
I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it.
On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective.
I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further.
> It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.
> So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties.
Not always, and not by me.
What the parties accept is irrelevant. We (almost) all believe that one or both of them is fully evil. Almost nobody on the right or left thinks "their" party represents their views (except a vocal minority of Republicans).
> This is probably why you're being downvoted.
I expected to be downvoted heavily when I posted. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm willing to take the hit.
> When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights
I don't think that's true. Obviously, we have basically no legal rights anymore in America. The ones we do have are tiny procedural things, like Miranda rights. When it comes to legality, it's just a matter of asking if rule X will be enforced in way Y at this particular time, which will certainly not hold at a different time. The Federal government is free to regulate basically anything in basically any way it pleases.
I mean, can you name anything that actually, solidly, is a legal right, for Americans? Maybe free speech, but that is under heavy assault. I can't think of much else.
Many economists have successfully argued that free trade is overall a net gain, even if other countries do enact free trade themselves.
The problem with TikTok and China in general is it's not just about free trade. The Chinese government owns a significant part of each company and uses those companies/apps to gather intelligence. They also often do not enforce IP, which blurs the line between trade and theft.
TikTok’s user base deserves a parent company domiciled in the US and under American regulatory and financial purview.
TikTok’s users embarrassed him in Tulsa. So TikTok must go.
China has other alternative social networks like LINE, Wechat to take their place but alongside the TikTok ban in India, they were also among the 58 apps banned too.
I guess they say it’s hypocrisy because it’s ‘Trump’ doing the ban. But when Biden started to tell his own staff to delete TikTok from their phones it’s apparent that it is more of a security concern than a ‘Trump embarrassment’ issue, such that they have less trust in Chinese-owned tech companies in general.
https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2016/07/so-newhouse-gave-...