| ▲ | prpl 14 hours ago |
| Why do you care if a chinese company is banned from business in the US? All sorts of american companies are banned from doing business in China |
|
| ▲ | itishappy 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'd prefer neither nation ban companies they don't like but I only have a voice in one. |
|
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If we banned all Chinese business with America, America would hurt a lot more than China. Our plutocracy made sure of that fact decades ago. I care becsuse I hate hypocrisy. Simple as that. They'll sweep Russian activity under the rug as long as it's done in an American website. This mindset clearly isn't results oriented. |
| |
| ▲ | prpl 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Slippery slope fallacy. We aren’t banning all chinese companies just like they haven’t banned all US companies | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where were you for the last 10+ years when China was blocking all social media from the US but the US wasn’t blocking it? Or does hypocrisy just apply to the USA? It seems like you have some kind of agenda unrelated to the pure concept of hypocrisy. |
|
|
| ▲ | fkyoureadthedoc 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do you care if your car gets stolen when people in China get their cars stolen every day? Well because they are taking something away from me |
| |
| ▲ | Spunkie 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unless you work directly for the US government in some way, you are perfectly free to get on a VPN and continue using tiktok. And unlike your chinese friends, you don't even need to break the law to do it. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | taylodl 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because we're looking at the Big Picture and seeing how they're figuring out how to dismantle our First Amendment rights. |
| |
| ▲ | dayjah 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | First Amendment rights do not extend to corporations under foreign (adversarial) government control. Simple as. This amendment to the constitution was rewritten a few times, each time more clearly stating that it applies to “the people”. From: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-1/ALD... | | |
| ▲ | taylodl 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The People chose to use TikTok as their free press. The US government has banned a tool The People were using for speech. The government utilized a specious argument of "security" in denying The People to their free press comprised of TikTok. The government provided zero evidence of national security being compromised. If anything, the US government has called into question how they are using data from US-based social media companies such that we may now expect reprisals from all around the world - maybe that's what they wanted? | | |
| ▲ | dayjah 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Programs like Prism [0] certainly lend credence to the idea that this ban reflects the US’ own behavior in terms of how it uses data. However Prism was markedly different given it collected data vs being a dial the government can turn to produce a given outcome in the consumers of the content. All of the congressional hearings over the past ~15 years demonstrates how business in the US is still pretty much governed by the rule of law. I’m of the opinion that there isn’t some shadow cabal working with Musk and Zuckerberg to control our minds. However we know that the CCP absolutely manages what the public can consume, so personally while I’m no fan of heavy handed government intervention in business, this ban seems like “a good thing” to me. We must protect the short, middle and long term prospects of our population — it’s a fundamental duty of the federal government to do so. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/07/google-faceboo... | |
| ▲ | dbsmith83 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree that evidence would be nice, but let's not pretend TikTok is simply a 'speech platform' for 'The People'. It is an app on your mobile phone collecting data about you and making it available to a foreign adversary and feeding you content controlled by a foreign adversary. |
| |
| ▲ | onionisafruit 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To me it seems like it could be a first amendment violation against Americans who want to speak via tiktok. This is a very weakly held opinion, and I don’t know if the opinion addresses this. |
| |
| ▲ | gambiting 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | First Amendment Right is only for American citizens, no? If you're a visitor to the US for example, you don't get the First Amendment protection against anything, you're a guest. Why doesn't the same principle apply to a foreign company? I don't see how banning tik tok affects your first amendment rights or first amendment rights of American companies - maybe you can explain? | | |
| ▲ | galleywest200 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The constitution applies to everyone within the borders of the country, not just citizens. Tourists still get due process, can say what they want, cannot be forced to house american soldiers in their hotel, etc. No idea if this applies to companies, but foreign visitors do get protections. | | |
| ▲ | ziddoap 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The constitution applies to everyone within the borders of the country Minor clarification that some parts specify "citizen" (e.g. voting). Others specify "person" or "resident" or the like, which would be anyone within the border. |
| |
| ▲ | redwall_hp 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Constitution binds the activity of the government, individuals are irrelevant. Congress is forbidden from passing a law that violates the inalienable rights of humans, freedom of speech and association being one that is conveniently enumerated in the first amendment. You will not find anywhere in the text that limits this to citizenship (with the sparse examples of the concept of citizenship coming up being things like eligibility for presidential office). The purpose of the Constitution is to spell out the abilities of the government, and one of the things it is expressly forbidden from doing is passing laws that curtail peoples' ability to communicate or associate. | | | |
| ▲ | cathalc 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Legal aliens absolutely have the same First Amendment rights as citizens. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 7thaccount 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also, the oligarchs just want us to use their crappy social media sites. This sets the stage for making competition illegal in some ways. | | | |
| ▲ | prpl 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ridiculous statement. You must believe they should have political speech then? Maybe they should be able to donate to elections or even vote too? Why stop at corporations? If they want speech, they should reside in the US, not just own a piece of a company that does. The rights enforced inside the US are very generous compared to most countries and many apply to both legal and illegal residents, but restricting some rights, especially political ones, is crucial to have a sovereign state | | |
| ▲ | p_j_w 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The constitution is very clear on which parts apply only to citizens. The first amendment is not one of them. |
|
|
