7 ms·

Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system.

by publicola1990 6y ago

Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system. Also US government hasn't made a specific claim of any imminent security threat posed by TikTok. From a data security point of view the expert opinion seems to be that there isn't a clear cut case for singling out and banning tiktok. The ban is therefore undoubtedly a political move, and that is problematic. Things should not be banned on political whims by using executive or administrative measures. Even legislative has limits, even if Congress passes a legislation banning TikTok, that legislation is likely to be struck down by the court is my guess. Ultimately banning TikTok is not a tenable democratic solution to whatever real or perceived problems it is causing. Some of the commenters here seems to want the democratic US government to suddenly grow authoritarian powers.

abc-xyz 6y ago
Tit for tat reciprocity is the basis for most modern trade relations.
lowiqengineer 6y ago
> Some of the commenters here seems to want the democratic US government to suddenly grow authoritarian powers. Ironically, I’d bet most of them probably identify as “libertarian”
- abfan1127 6y ago
  ummm... what do you have for that basis? or are your quotes there for sarcasm...
- entropea 6y ago
  2020 society is based on reactions without ideological consistency, like social media has trained us to.
cooljacob204 6y ago
TikTok is not ran or based in the US. I don't get why you think they would be protected under US laws like a US based corporation. Congress and Executive branch can easily ban foreign companies from operating in the US and there is a long history of them doing so.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Some TikTok users are in the US, and taking a service away from them should happen under US law.
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    I think the information age has really pushed the limits of what we find acceptable to leave to independent choice in democratic societies. Freedoms in democracy are being abused left-and-right to highlight specific weaknesses fundamental a democracy's healthy function. When it comes to TikTok, frankly I'm not sure if a foreign business under the thumb of the CCP is more or less a threat than businesses operating in our own country abusing the same freedoms for personal gain. You would assume those abusing the system located in the US had a vested interest in stability of the country for continuation of their lofty positions in society, but given broad anti-consumer and labor practices, both foreign and domestic are gutting the foundations of the social contract that make citizens want to believe in and support a democracy. I think the biggest blow we've had in this country is widespread undermining and exploitation of its citizens for personal gain, which have left many unable or in some cases, unwilling, to support the continuation of the system being used against them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - bad_user 6y ago
      The reverse of that coin is that abuse of freedom is turned into an excuse for restricting freedom. It's the modus operandi of authoritarianism.
dahfizz 6y ago
> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system. Cuban cigars haven't broken any laws. Iranian ceramics haven't broken any laws. The power to sanction / embargo is a very well established power of the government, and it doesn't require a trial. China has long been in violation of the Trafficking in Persons report[1] and, more recently, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act[2]. Violation of the TIP report especially gives a very strong precedent for trade sanctions. TikTok has been described as a national security threat multiple times by multiple political leaders. You may disagree with that designation, but the resulting ban itself is strongly supported by law and precedent. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_Persons_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_Persons_Report [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they actually do employ US citizens in a US office. There’s also the fact that the Constitution doesn’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, but that seems to be ignored nowadays.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? This action is obviously not a bill of attainder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder > A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. 1) The action was not taken by the legislature, 2) I do not believe it declares TikTok to be "guilty" of any crime, 3) I'm sure the district court judge knows what a bill of attainder is, would have said so if this was one.
infinity0 6y ago
> TikTok is controllable by the CCP It's extremely ironic that the Trump administration (& their supporters) justify their control over US people and companies, preventing them engaging in normal everyday activities with Chinese partners, by saying "[X] is controllable by the CCP". Even whilst there is no evidence of the latter actually happening. This is not even "pot meet kettle", this is the pot calling a fridge a kettle.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  It's literally plain language of the law, including a minimim of CCP membership in the company. https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-take-control-of-chinas-private-sector?s=09 https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-tak... Further the CCP has already done the same to Western companies across the board. Let's not forget not only the atrocities committed against Uigher people, but the censorship of those atrocities.
mistermann 6y ago
> The ban is therefore undoubtedly a political move, and that is problematic. Another possibility is that objective physical reality contains some information (some of which is Top Secret) that does not exist in your internal mental model of reality. An exact, always up to date copy would require something akin to omniscience.

abc-xyz 6y ago

Tit for tat reciprocity is the basis for most modern trade relations.

lowiqengineer 6y ago

> Some of the commenters here seems to want the democratic US government to suddenly grow authoritarian powers. Ironically, I’d bet most of them probably identify as “libertarian”

abfan1127 6y ago
ummm... what do you have for that basis? or are your quotes there for sarcasm...
entropea 6y ago
2020 society is based on reactions without ideological consistency, like social media has trained us to.

cooljacob204 6y ago

TikTok is not ran or based in the US. I don't get why you think they would be protected under US laws like a US based corporation. Congress and Executive branch can easily ban foreign companies from operating in the US and there is a long history of them doing so.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 6y ago
Some TikTok users are in the US, and taking a service away from them should happen under US law.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  I think the information age has really pushed the limits of what we find acceptable to leave to independent choice in democratic societies. Freedoms in democracy are being abused left-and-right to highlight specific weaknesses fundamental a democracy's healthy function. When it comes to TikTok, frankly I'm not sure if a foreign business under the thumb of the CCP is more or less a threat than businesses operating in our own country abusing the same freedoms for personal gain. You would assume those abusing the system located in the US had a vested interest in stability of the country for continuation of their lofty positions in society, but given broad anti-consumer and labor practices, both foreign and domestic are gutting the foundations of the social contract that make citizens want to believe in and support a democracy. I think the biggest blow we've had in this country is widespread undermining and exploitation of its citizens for personal gain, which have left many unable or in some cases, unwilling, to support the continuation of the system being used against them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bad_user 6y ago
    The reverse of that coin is that abuse of freedom is turned into an excuse for restricting freedom. It's the modus operandi of authoritarianism.

dahfizz 6y ago

> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system. Cuban cigars haven't broken any laws. Iranian ceramics haven't broken any laws. The power to sanction / embargo is a very well established power of the government, and it doesn't require a trial. China has long been in violation of the Trafficking in Persons report[1] and, more recently, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act[2]. Violation of the TIP report especially gives a very strong precedent for trade sanctions. TikTok has been described as a national security threat multiple times by multiple political leaders. You may disagree with that designation, but the resulting ban itself is strongly supported by law and precedent. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_Persons_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_Persons_Report [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act

colejohnson66 6y ago
Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they actually do employ US citizens in a US office. There’s also the fact that the Constitution doesn’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, but that seems to be ignored nowadays.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? This action is obviously not a bill of attainder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder > A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. 1) The action was not taken by the legislature, 2) I do not believe it declares TikTok to be "guilty" of any crime, 3) I'm sure the district court judge knows what a bill of attainder is, would have said so if this was one.

infinity0 6y ago

> TikTok is controllable by the CCP It's extremely ironic that the Trump administration (& their supporters) justify their control over US people and companies, preventing them engaging in normal everyday activities with Chinese partners, by saying "[X] is controllable by the CCP". Even whilst there is no evidence of the latter actually happening. This is not even "pot meet kettle", this is the pot calling a fridge a kettle.

vorpalhex 6y ago
It's literally plain language of the law, including a minimim of CCP membership in the company. https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-take-control-of-chinas-private-sector?s=09 https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-tak... Further the CCP has already done the same to Western companies across the board. Let's not forget not only the atrocities committed against Uigher people, but the censorship of those atrocities.

mistermann 6y ago

> The ban is therefore undoubtedly a political move, and that is problematic. Another possibility is that objective physical reality contains some information (some of which is Top Secret) that does not exist in your internal mental model of reality. An exact, always up to date copy would require something akin to omniscience.