15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
15.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2025, 12:06
15.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2025, 12:06
Jan 17, 2025, 12:06
 
The Flying Penguin wrote on Jan 17, 2025, 12:00:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 17, 2025, 10:34:
SCOTUS upholds law banning a platform used by nearly half of all Americans.
Constitution a meager formality.

Looks like Biden will not enforce the ban, allowing Trump to deal with it.

link
Donnie and his underlings have already stated that they'll not shutdown TikTok because it's a Chinese Communist spy app that addicts our kids, harvests their data, targets them with harmful and manipulative content, all the while spreading communist propaganda. And none of those things are illegal.
Avatar 58135
14.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2025, 12:00
14.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2025, 12:00
Jan 17, 2025, 12:00
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 17, 2025, 10:34:
SCOTUS upholds law banning a platform used by nearly half of all Americans.
Constitution a meager formality.

Looks like Biden will not enforce the ban, allowing Trump to deal with it.

link
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes."
- Joanna Maciejewska
Avatar 22380
13.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2025, 10:34
13.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2025, 10:34
Jan 17, 2025, 10:34
 
SCOTUS upholds law banning a platform used by nearly half of all Americans.
Constitution a meager formality.
Avatar 58135
12.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 13:45
12.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 13:45
Jan 16, 2025, 13:45
 
People keeping saying the government wants to ban TikTok, which is just wrong. They gave TikTok the option of continuing as long as it's not controlled by the Chinese government. Bytedance is the one that made the decision to shut it down.

Despite what a conservative Supreme Court decided, companies are not people. Companies are legal constructs that are fully regulated by the government. To claim TikTok has the legal right to ignore goverment oversight would be another massive blow to regulations designed to protect citizens.
11.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 11:23
11.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 11:23
Jan 16, 2025, 11:23
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 16, 2025, 10:41:
"download TikTok and use it pretending to be a 13 year old version of yourself, and I'd wager you're seeing redpill stuff within 30 minutes"
And that is different exactly from Twitter or Facebook in what way?

Sounds like what you're saying is anecdotal, because if it was the truth, or factual, it would be easy to prove. And nobody's been able to prove that TikTok is doing anything different from any other social media that profits by engagement.

You're not wrong, and I felt I addressed that, but "everyone else is doing it" isn't a good defense, right?
10.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 10:41
10.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 10:41
Jan 16, 2025, 10:41
 
"download TikTok and use it pretending to be a 13 year old version of yourself, and I'd wager you're seeing redpill stuff within 30 minutes"
And that is different exactly from Twitter or Facebook in what way?

Sounds like what you're saying is anecdotal, because if it was the truth, or factual, it would be easy to prove. And nobody's been able to prove that TikTok is doing anything different from any other social media that profits by engagement.
Avatar 58135
9.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 10:26
9.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 10:26
Jan 16, 2025, 10:26
 
It's not just privacy.

The government has 3 total arguments:
1) Privacy. I get this one, but don't find it overly compelling

2) The algorithm. I really buy into this one. The algorithm is really fucking up society, particularly young kids. This is true for domestic and international companies. The difference is that companies like Meta are fucking us up out of callous greed. Y'know, capitalism! The Chinese government has another motive for this - destabilization. Which, frankly, they already abuse content on Meta to destabilize us (and it's easy to tell here who gets their news from some algorithm.) China can have TikTok make subtle tweaks to ensure certain people see certain things. They know damn well who is a 13 year old American boy, and can make sure those boys see Andrew Tate. In fact, that already happens! I'd encourage any of you to download TikTok and use it pretending to be a 13 year old version of yourself, and I'd wager you're seeing redpill stuff within 30 minutes

3) Something classified. They aren't saying what this is, and they're not telling Bytedance what this is, but numerous Senators from both parties have alluded repeatedly to something classified they know that we do not. I do not find this overly compelling. Just say it or shut up, Tom Cotton
8.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 10:18
8.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 10:18
Jan 16, 2025, 10:18
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 16, 2025, 09:38:
Carighan wrote on Jan 16, 2025, 07:23:
opie wrote on Jan 15, 2025, 23:56:
unconstitutional.. lol you can still say what you want (roughly), just not there. unless you want to try to argue freedom of assembly in an online space.

Yeah exactly. TikTok is essentially someone's private backyard anyways - meaning there is no First Amendment right, it's their private property - and like any private property, it can violate laws and then either be fined, restricted, limited or in extreme cases, confiscated.

Since this is a digital ground, the equivalent to a restaurant being closed for violating food hygiene laws is to prevent access to TikTok for violating data protection laws.
But that's just it, TikTok hasn't violated any laws.
If I were to hazard a guess it would be that neither one of you read the article.

Exactly. TikTok is being banned for the EXPECTATION it might violate laws by giving private information to the Chinese intelligence services.

Don't get me wrong, it's a valid concern, and that's why I have no issue with Tiktok being banned on government employee and military personnel's phones (as should ALL social media, see below). But the ACLU may have a legal point that banning the service entirely could be unconstitutional. That's for the supremes to decide.

In the end, I think a better approach would be tighter regulation of ALL social media in the way the EU is going. Let's be honest: X, Facebook, Youtube, etal, are ALL in the business of selling your private information, to the highest bidder, which COULD be intelligence agencies of this country or other countries. How is that any better than what Tiktok might do?

As for misinformation from Tiktok, the same is true for ANY social media company.

And in the end it will be meaningless. People will find a way around the ban, or use some other service. There are already reports that Tiktok users are moving to ANOTHER Bytedance owned social media service called RedNote: Link

It's just a game of wack-a-mole.
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes."
- Joanna Maciejewska
Avatar 22380
7.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 10:09
7.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 10:09
Jan 16, 2025, 10:09
 
the easiest way to discover what the bible Constitution says is to read it

facepalm
Avatar 58135
6.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 10:06
6.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 10:06
Jan 16, 2025, 10:06
 
WaltSee wrote on Jan 16, 2025, 09:30:
But the easiest way to discover what the Constitution says is to read it, I think.

It not at all an accurate way to do it. It's like saying the best way to figure out what a fruit tastes like is to look at it.

Walt, we have literal centuries of Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document, and was meant to be interpreted. And we live in a nation built on precedent, so those interpretations are at least as important as what the Constitution says.

You will interpret something different than I do, as the Constitution is deliberately vague. It's pretty short, you know. And what one reasonable person interprets may be very different than how three nutters that think unregulated capitalism is great, and another nutter whose opinions on this very board constantly seem to change depending upon what the GOP party line is.
5.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 09:38
5.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 09:38
Jan 16, 2025, 09:38
 
Carighan wrote on Jan 16, 2025, 07:23:
opie wrote on Jan 15, 2025, 23:56:
unconstitutional.. lol you can still say what you want (roughly), just not there. unless you want to try to argue freedom of assembly in an online space.

Yeah exactly. TikTok is essentially someone's private backyard anyways - meaning there is no First Amendment right, it's their private property - and like any private property, it can violate laws and then either be fined, restricted, limited or in extreme cases, confiscated.

Since this is a digital ground, the equivalent to a restaurant being closed for violating food hygiene laws is to prevent access to TikTok for violating data protection laws.
But that's just it, TikTok hasn't violated any laws.
If I were to hazard a guess it would be that neither one of you read the article.
Avatar 58135
4.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 09:30
4.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 09:30
Jan 16, 2025, 09:30
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 15, 2025, 21:55:
The easiest way to get three different answers is to ask three constitutionalists the same question.

Or three nutters who think communism is to die for...well, that was perhaps too much of an accurate statement...;)

But the easiest way to discover what the Constitution says is to read it, I think.
It is well known that I cannot err--and so, if you should happen across an error in anything I have written you can be absolutely sure that *I* did not write it!...;)
Avatar 16008
3.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2025, 07:23
3.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2025, 07:23
Jan 16, 2025, 07:23
 
opie wrote on Jan 15, 2025, 23:56:
unconstitutional.. lol you can still say what you want (roughly), just not there. unless you want to try to argue freedom of assembly in an online space.

Yeah exactly. TikTok is essentially someone's private backyard anyways - meaning there is no First Amendment right, it's their private property - and like any private property, it can violate laws and then either be fined, restricted, limited or in extreme cases, confiscated.

Since this is a digital ground, the equivalent to a restaurant being closed for violating food hygiene laws is to prevent access to TikTok for violating data protection laws.
Avatar 60214
2.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 15, 2025, 23:56
2.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 15, 2025, 23:56
Jan 15, 2025, 23:56
 
unconstitutional.. lol you can still say what you want (roughly), just not there. unless you want to try to argue freedom of assembly in an online space.
1.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Jan 15, 2025, 21:55
1.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Jan 15, 2025, 21:55
Jan 15, 2025, 21:55
 
The easiest way to get three different answers is to ask three constitutionalists the same question.
Avatar 58135
15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older