4 ms·

Agreed...I don't understand why this isn't an obvious thing all of congress would get behind. Change the law if necessary.

woodruffw 4y ago
Because the statutory (not to mention constitutional) implications are staggering: what about our government's structure do you think gives it the authority to outright ban social media companies? Do you want it to have that power, or do you just want to government to casuistically ban the things you think should be banned? Note: this is entirely independent from whether TikTok is bad, which I'm more confident than not it is. But contorting our already contorted national security laws around it is not a tenable solution.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  “Do you want it to have that power” What an odd question. The government bans things all the time - can you go and buy unpasteurized milk right now? Or walk into a weapons store and buy brass knuckles? But heaven forbid, we’re abandoning our principles if we ban a data collection platform owned and operated by a genocidal undemocratic government.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Of course the government bans things all the time. The question is of kind: unpasteurized milk and brass knuckles exist in regulatory environments that don't meaningfully impinge upon civil liberties. It's not even clear what statute you'd use to "ban" TikTok. Is it a national security risk?
    - shrewduser 4y ago
      it is a national risk but i imagine there's also economic / trade grounds in the fact that china doesn't let american companies compete in their market. I don't see any reason for it not to be in the purview of government.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        It is in the purview of the government. That's not the question; the statutory justification for a ban is the question. Every single country on this planet of ours engages in some form of protectionism, whether we like it or not: again, it isn't clear what casuistic justification explains singling out China's protectionism, and even then banning just one company involved in it. Italy doesn't let us sell the sawdust we call "Parmesan," but I'd prefer it if we didn't ban selling the real thing in retaliation. Finally, for the national risk: what, precisely is the national risk? You can argue (correctly!) that they're a bad actor given this news, and I would be more than happy to see those involved in the surveillance of journalists see the inside of a court. But this doesn't even come close to meeting the standard for a national security risk, weak as that standard has become.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  You don't need to ban it. Just forbid US companies from doing business with TikTok, and their users will plummet when they can't pay for CDNs in America.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Thanks for actually answering the question! Frankly, I wouldn't mind if this happens. I just wish we wouldn't swing "national security" around as the cudgel.
  - MisterMower 4y ago
    We should tax downloading and using the app. Maybe show some warning labels and horrific photos of what the app can do to you if you use it too much. Ban its use in certain areas. It worked for limiting cigarette use and TikTok is at least as bad for you. I think it’s worth a try and the legal precedence is already there.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  The Constitution plainly gives Congress the power and right to regulate international trade.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Yes. What isn't clear is whether that statutory authority even approaches being empowered to ban companies that figure centrally in public expression.
pesfandiar 4y ago
It seems we're sliding into a new cold war, but the US is still contemplating its strategy. Banning a vastly successful social media outright needs to be aligned with that strategy, and not to mention how unpopular taking away an addictive app would be with the voters.

woodruffw 4y ago

Because the statutory (not to mention constitutional) implications are staggering: what about our government's structure do you think gives it the authority to outright ban social media companies? Do you want it to have that power, or do you just want to government to casuistically ban the things you think should be banned? Note: this is entirely independent from whether TikTok is bad, which I'm more confident than not it is. But contorting our already contorted national security laws around it is not a tenable solution.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
“Do you want it to have that power” What an odd question. The government bans things all the time - can you go and buy unpasteurized milk right now? Or walk into a weapons store and buy brass knuckles? But heaven forbid, we’re abandoning our principles if we ban a data collection platform owned and operated by a genocidal undemocratic government.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Of course the government bans things all the time. The question is of kind: unpasteurized milk and brass knuckles exist in regulatory environments that don't meaningfully impinge upon civil liberties. It's not even clear what statute you'd use to "ban" TikTok. Is it a national security risk?
  - shrewduser 4y ago
    it is a national risk but i imagine there's also economic / trade grounds in the fact that china doesn't let american companies compete in their market. I don't see any reason for it not to be in the purview of government.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      It is in the purview of the government. That's not the question; the statutory justification for a ban is the question. Every single country on this planet of ours engages in some form of protectionism, whether we like it or not: again, it isn't clear what casuistic justification explains singling out China's protectionism, and even then banning just one company involved in it. Italy doesn't let us sell the sawdust we call "Parmesan," but I'd prefer it if we didn't ban selling the real thing in retaliation. Finally, for the national risk: what, precisely is the national risk? You can argue (correctly!) that they're a bad actor given this news, and I would be more than happy to see those involved in the surveillance of journalists see the inside of a court. But this doesn't even come close to meeting the standard for a national security risk, weak as that standard has become.
mannerheim 4y ago
You don't need to ban it. Just forbid US companies from doing business with TikTok, and their users will plummet when they can't pay for CDNs in America.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Thanks for actually answering the question! Frankly, I wouldn't mind if this happens. I just wish we wouldn't swing "national security" around as the cudgel.
- MisterMower 4y ago
  We should tax downloading and using the app. Maybe show some warning labels and horrific photos of what the app can do to you if you use it too much. Ban its use in certain areas. It worked for limiting cigarette use and TikTok is at least as bad for you. I think it’s worth a try and the legal precedence is already there.
LarryMullins 4y ago
The Constitution plainly gives Congress the power and right to regulate international trade.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Yes. What isn't clear is whether that statutory authority even approaches being empowered to ban companies that figure centrally in public expression.

pesfandiar 4y ago

It seems we're sliding into a new cold war, but the US is still contemplating its strategy. Banning a vastly successful social media outright needs to be aligned with that strategy, and not to mention how unpopular taking away an addictive app would be with the voters.