Mike Masnick: We're just banning software left and right now in the US, huh?

We're just banning software left and right now in the US, huh?

Yep. I hate it so much.

Haven't they been talking about banning Kaspersky since...forever? Forever = since 2017 or something.

What’s next, banning Stuxnet?

I mean you're already banning books so why stop.

banning _all_ software might be a net positive for society but not like this

Banning both of those is a net positive for the world.

There's plenty of speech that could be banned that might be a "net positive" for the world, but you are setting the precedent that banning speech is fine, and you will find that it won't be long until lots of speech you do like is also banned.

Can’t we just ban the speech that I personally don’t like?

I mean, that would make it easier, wouldn't it?

I call I'm in charge, no take backs!

SCOTUS is my dream job. I promise to annoy Clarence Thomas either to death or to retirement. His call.

Nothing banned was free speech. Do you think any software platform owned by China or Russia allows free speech? If so, I cordially invite you to take a long trip to either country and attempt to exercise your free speech vigorously on social media and see what happens.

No, I do not think that either China or Russia have free speech. I also don't think the US should base our policies on those countries. But the US does allow free speech. And yes, contra your misinformed opinions, courts have repeatedly said that software is a form of 1st Amendment protected speech

The whole idea is that we're not like countries run by authoritarians. Not sure what argument you're trying to make, but this ain't it.

This is some bizarre, twisted logic you're employing here. So because China and Russia don't have free speech that means that Chinese or Russian entities don't get free speech when they're subject to U.S. law?

Has your company ever done business with a foreign government or a local government that has gone against the President's wishes? Congrats you can be banned from doing business in the US now

That’s always been the case. Import and export licenses and restrictions lists have been around for a very long time.

It's called freedom of speech, not freedom of free speech. All speech in the US, free or not, is subject to the 1st amendment. I'm *Canadian* and I can get this.

Those two things are not like each other.

I haven't dug into Kapersky so this just me sounding off: but a piece of security software seems way more justifiable than a social media app.

The original findings that led to them being banned from govt computer was fascinating because both sides had what seemed like a legitimate argument. Govt: You collected classified programs on a CIA computer and sent them to Russia Kaspersky: Our antivirus found and reported the viruses on your 1/

computer just like it said it would in the terms. You shouldn't have installed antivirus on a computer you used to develop classified viruses.

Kaspersky has been banned on federal systems since 2017, which of course is a bit different than a nationwide ban. Interesting that this EO wasn’t used on TikTok though.

@mmasnick.bsky.social Should we just let software run by foreign adversary governments run wild in the US?

I mean, the nature of a free society is that, yes, you do. You certainly try to educate people about the problems and risks of that software. But you're still banning speech and we don't allow that under the First Amendment.

Hey Mike, I get what you’re saying here, but if I were a snarky wag, I’d think that you’re advocating anarchy. I’m thinking a “free society,” isn’t necessarily one without regulation, and one function of government is to keep its people safe. I might be missing something here tho.

I did not call for no regulation. I said that under the First Amendment we generally cannot ban speech. There is a test, though, known as strict scrutiny. And I do not see how this outright ban can meet the criteria necessary for strict scrutiny.

No you did not. Gonna have to go look up this “strict scrutiny” thing. Something you understand that I do not. Thanks!

There is a difference between "banning this because it is dangerous" and "banning this because the corporation is registered in a foreign country we might not be happy with"

This is true. That said, over the years I’ve read suggestions that this company’s software may be compromised because of the company’s location. I have no hard data on this, and of course banning on speculation isn’t good. But it’s not software I’d feel comfortable using.

Oh I don't trust it at all, my mom got a laptop with it pre-installed and it toasted her work files and almost corrupted every backup. It, along with Norton, are bad software that shouldn't be used, but it shouldn't be banned just because of Kaspersky being russian.

A closed-source software product isn’t “speech” regardless of what the robed wizards said one time

By this rationale all products are speech and nothing can ever be banned

a foreign company’s right to sell their product is speech? since when?

Yes? Software is seen as speech. Same as books, movies, etc. Do we ban Russian or Chinese literature from being sold in the US? No. Because it's still speech.

I am having trouble with the idea of "software is seen as speech." Working in SiliValley for 3+ decades, I think of "speech" as expressive, where I think of computers/software as something built to do the work of humans, and do it faster/better. Clearly I'm missing something, or maybe it's Friday.

Well, we don't ban it *yet*.

It's expression. Not all forms of expression are literally speech, but "speech" gets used as a sort of catch-all term.

In general, yes. We don't limit speech based on the speaker.

I wouldn't touch anything Kaspersky with a bargepole

I mean, same. But that still doesn't mean the US should be *banning* software.

Seems like playing whackamole.

It’s always fun to remember that Kaspersky himself served in the GRU.

If that doesn't set alarm bells 😱 Same for Telegram, that shit is 100% controlled by the Kremlin.

Gerontocracy enables moral panic action

I'd draw a distinction between software that is primarily a speech platform and software that has no specific 1A purpose. I am much less perturbed by this than by the TikTok ban. This is your area of expertise, not mine. Other than the obvious, how does it differ from this?

U.S. bans the sale and import of some tech from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTEwww.npr.org The five-member FCC said it has voted unanimously to adopt new rules that will block the importation or sale of certain technology products that pose security risks to U.S. critical infrastructure.

Yeah, I mean, I spoke out at the time how I also thought the Huawei/ZTE bans were bullshit too, though those were more hardware based, which don't have the same speech issues. I still thought it was mostly nationalistic nonsense though.

Post