Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JoshuaJB 825 days ago
Broadcast news and radio are limited to at most 20% foreign ownership by default [1]. Applying a similar requirement to large internet news distributors seems reasonable if they want to do business in the US (even if "banned" they could still distribute content, they'd just be restricted in making money).

[1] https://www.foster.com/newsroom-publications-The-Road-Map-Fo...
2 comments
segasaturn 824 days ago
Broadcast news and radio are able to be restricted because the the US government owns the airwaves - there is (still) no meaningful regulation of the internet in the United States and therefore communications over the internet are protected by the First Amendment.
link
aprilthird2021 825 days ago
But, every American has access to even government propaganda of foreign adversaries. It's part of the 1st Amendment. Denying access to this information feels really weird. If TikTok doesn't divest, it will be banned and app stores will not be allowed to distribute it and the government telling app stores which content is and isn't approved feels like the PATRIOT Act all over again, all of us handing over our rights for some boogeyman
link
whats_a_quasar 824 days ago
Yes, and Americans will continue to have access to propaganda of foreign adversaries after this bill passes. The ownership restrictions on broadcast media that OP mentions don't stop Americans from going to the Chinese state news agencies website (https://english.news.cn/). These measures limit the ability of foreign corporations to control American news distribution platforms, not the ability of Americans who want to read Chinese propaganda to do so.
link
JumpCrisscross 824 days ago
> every American has access to even government propaganda of foreign adversaries. It's part of the 1st Amendment. Denying access to this information feels really weird

As it should. Fortunately, this bill doesn’t do that. If ByteDance won’t sell, TikTok gets removed from app stores. TikTok.com will remain free to access.

The bill curtails distribution and amplification, not speech.

link
sillyalbatross 824 days ago
The bill explicitly allows the President to designate a "website" as a threat. How that would be applied exactly is a different question, which is why many argue that this is a Pandora's box not worth opening.
link
JumpCrisscross 824 days ago
> bill explicitly allows the President to designate a "website" as a threat

No, it has to be controlled by a foreign adversary country [1].

The broadest power is in 3(a)(ii) on page 10, which lets the President designate an app or website as a foreign adversary controlled application if it is a significant national security threat following public notice and reporting requirements. But even then, it’s a divestiture order subject to judicial review, not the power to ban.

[1] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites...

link