Which law? He is assuming a use—and that assumption is unwarranted—and then claiming this use would make it in violation of Hong Kong law. That’s not a lawful obligation. That’s a string of assumptions that he’s using to make a decision. There is no court order. No law cited.
-
-
I am pretty sure Hong Kong police, whatever else the problems they may have in the way they do things, aren’t actually concerned with this app. They may be forced to a post hoc statement by mainland but still... That’s why my knowledge of the substantive issue matters.
-
When substantial claims are this far off base, we need a law cited or a legal process invoked before that benefit of the doubt can be summoned. “Let’s see what they have to say” would make sense if one could even imagine a plausible legal scenario.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.