Of course it's relevant. TikTok should be considered a broadcaster. We have not allowed foreign ownership of a broadcaster since 1934.

A book does not broadcast in the same way.

Since when are social media apps considered broadcasters? In fact, section 230 legally protects social media apps from the civil liabilities of broadcasting. You're also just distracting from the actual issue. Being that, as citizens of a democratic republic promoting free speech, press, association, etc., do you think we have a right to view foreign media (including broadcasts for that matter)?

Yes we should be able to view it. This restriction doesn't prevent us from viewing these creators or their videos. It DOES mandate that it is sold to a US-based company.

Allowing a foreign adversary to consistently pump in propaganda just isn't something that should be protected by free speech... You, a citizen, are allowed to go find whatever media your heart desires. A foreign power is NOT allowed to force feed your propaganda. How is that not clear?

Free speech protects our ability to not be prosecuted for saying or viewing something controversial. Why on earth would that same protection be extended to a foreign power?!

> TikTok should be considered a broadcaster.

> Since when are social media apps considered broadcasters?

Not OP but they said should be, not is

THIS!

If you listen to the arguments that TikTok made before the Supreme Court, the court is extremely dubious of the free speech argument. And this has been a court that has been very favorable to free speech overall.

It makes no sense to me how this is an argument of free speech.

I assume you are saying this is curtailing the creators speech? However the creators can move to any other platform, they are not being restricted in what they can say or produce.

So perhaps the concern is about TikTok's free speech; which, thank god the constitution does not protect a foreign adversaries right to free speech.

Not free speech. INHO its about free assembly. 140M of us assembled there, and now that meeting place is being distroyed, and we are being dispersed, without any actual harm being in evidence. If the government can do that here, it can do it anywhere.

That's how women earned the right to vote in this country...

Free speech includes the right to receive/hear speech. TikTok contains lots of speech that US citizens have the right to hear.

This is completely untrue, there are unlimited examples of speech that exists out there that you have absolutely no inherent right to hear, and in fact many existing laws explicitly support restrictions on your ability to hear the speech. Just a few examples off the top of my head; do I have the right to hear:

* A comedian at a paid event when I haven't paid

* Private conversations between you and your significant other

* DMs between other people on social media

* Podcasts published exclusively on Spotify when I don't have a membership

* Speech in walled gardens (FB, Insta, X, etc) where I don't have an account

What does this have to do with anything? How do any of these examples relate to the tiktok ban in the slightest?

By your reasoning, I have a right to hear the speech on instagram and X, correct?

Well tough cookies for me, meta and X are bith restricting my freedom of assembly. Will you go to bat for me?

They’ve imposed arbitrary restrictions on my access to speech simply because I refuse to sign up. And The government is okay with them restricting me from these public squares, outrageous!

Will you be angry on my behalf, like you are with the restriction on tik tok?

If these are truly public squares, it’s outrageous that I need to essentially show ID and give away a ton of rights to X and meta just to access the public square. Why are we not mad about that as well?

Again, this feels completely unrelated to the tiktok ban. It's fine for a venue of free speech to have rules, it's different for the government to ban a platform 1/3 of americans use because of intangible threats that are frankly an incredibly thin excuse for censorship.

The government isn't banning you from most of these, the only ones they are banning you from is private ones, but TikTok has speech that is non-private, so it's completely different.

So just go hear it from somewhere else. There is no content on tiktok that can't be recorded and posted on instagram reels.

I agree, though not when broadcast by a foreign adversary (per the 1934 law).

Forcing a sale to a US company also enables that to continue. Additionally, it does not protect the right for users to receive/hear speech from EVERY outlet, this same speech is permissible on any other platform - simply not one mediated by an adversary.

I'm very curious about this case, actually. My top questions

- difference between actually broadcast and potentially broadcast. Can the government suspend someone for potentially doing something?

- More on the right to hear speech -- you're saying that I cannot receive speech from foreign adversaries if I choose to do so myself? IMO this is well within my rights

- Do platform effects (e.g. recommendation) count as speech? For example, I may choose to post on TikTok bc it circulates in 24h to a specific audience - if TT got changed, does this mean that my speech got curtailed? (right to assemble, etc)

We haven't allowed a foreign adversary to own a media company since 1934.

This is just updating the standard. TikTok is clearly a massive threat, how is that not obvious?

https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli....

>We haven't allowed a foreign adversary to own a media company since 1934.

False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America

The link you cited literally explains how they tried to get around this restriction by setting it up as an autonomous non-profit (that was US-based).

Additionally, it was required to register as a foreign agent before shutting down...

This rather proves my point

Some user here called “cma” commented twice about how “this headline is libel”.

Both comments are now deleted/taken down. Do we have a Chinese gov shill in the mix?

No, just someone who realised their mistake, I think.

Edit: I mean yes of course, this is the internet, but I doubt that’s what cma was doing.

Bridge between Claude (Desktop) and a Home Assistant server. Works 10x better than the built in Home Assistant LLM

I'm planning to use this at home to defend my focus from myself! That idea definitely goes both ways.

You definitely can! We're using kademlia for sync and discovery, which works quite well

We've thought a fair amount about this. Our approach is the use sqlite on-device. Think about it more as a partially replicated db instead of a cache.

Then locally available devices can compare changelogs and sync only the delta.

No need for a checksum, since you can use monetonically increasing version numbers and CRDTs!

> No need for a checksum, since you can use monetonically increasing version numbers and CRDTs!

How does that help against random bit flips?

The number of API keys that still travel via Slack is wild. But need something like this to be equally low-effort, nice!