4 ms·

I thought the US Constitution prohibits laws that target only one person or corporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.o

by rapjr9 4y ago

I thought the US Constitution prohibits laws that target only one person or corporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/can-congress-punish-people-why-the-constitution-prohibits-bills-attainder https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/can-congres... If Congress bans TikTok they have to ban all apps like TikTok. Maybe they claim it is for national defense? But what business does not have some relation to national defense? Are they going to ban all engineering that originates in China? Passing a more general privacy law and providing funds for enforcement of it would have been a better way to address this.

kube-system 4y ago
I haven't been able to find the actual text of this law, but if it's written like the other 'TikTok ban' legislation I've seen -- they don't technically ban TikTok by name. The ones I have read are actually a ban on "social media services of that are based in or have a controlling parent company located in one of [x] countries" or something to that degree. Although headline writers have boiled that down to "TikTok ban".
- Brybry 4y ago
  It was part of a (very big) amendment [1] ("NO TIKTOK ON GOVERNMENT DEVICES") to H.R. 2617 [2] I really enjoy the transparency our government has but it could still be a lot better. Finding the final text of bills, especially before a bill is passed and when our voices might still matter, can be more difficult than it should be. [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/issue-197/senate-section/article/S7313-2#:~:text=service%20TikTok https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/iss... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617
fluidcruft 4y ago
How is Congress choosing not to allow a free app on devices they purchase even remotely a punishment? What's the actual harm to TikTok beyond the fact that they cannot monetize government employees?
bastawhiz 4y ago
This is simply wrong from every angle. The government isn't stopping anyone from using TikTok, they're stopping people from using it on devices the government has purchased and maintains. You're free to have your own device and watch whatever you want with whatever app you want. But moreover, the constitution has exactly zero language that says "you can't pass a law to block apps on government owned devices for legitimate security concerns unless you block every other app that might also be a security concern so that it's fair." in the same way that the first amendment doesn't say the government can't pass a law blocking pornhub on government issued laptops. Hell, the government could simply say "too many federal employees are wasting time on TikTok" or "this is fucking with our VPN" or any number of other things and pass a law to block it. You have no right, as a government employee, to use your business device for whatever purpose you want. That's never been the case.

by rapjr9 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

I haven't been able to find the actual text of this law, but if it's written like the other 'TikTok ban' legislation I've seen -- they don't technically ban TikTok by name. The ones I have read are actually a ban on "social media services of that are based in or have a controlling parent company located in one of [x] countries" or something to that degree. Although headline writers have boiled that down to "TikTok ban".

Brybry 4y ago
It was part of a (very big) amendment [1] ("NO TIKTOK ON GOVERNMENT DEVICES") to H.R. 2617 [2] I really enjoy the transparency our government has but it could still be a lot better. Finding the final text of bills, especially before a bill is passed and when our voices might still matter, can be more difficult than it should be. [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/issue-197/senate-section/article/S7313-2#:~:text=service%20TikTok https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/iss... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617

fluidcruft 4y ago

How is Congress choosing not to allow a free app on devices they purchase even remotely a punishment? What's the actual harm to TikTok beyond the fact that they cannot monetize government employees?

bastawhiz 4y ago

This is simply wrong from every angle. The government isn't stopping anyone from using TikTok, they're stopping people from using it on devices the government has purchased and maintains. You're free to have your own device and watch whatever you want with whatever app you want. But moreover, the constitution has exactly zero language that says "you can't pass a law to block apps on government owned devices for legitimate security concerns unless you block every other app that might also be a security concern so that it's fair." in the same way that the first amendment doesn't say the government can't pass a law blocking pornhub on government issued laptops. Hell, the government could simply say "too many federal employees are wasting time on TikTok" or "this is fucking with our VPN" or any number of other things and pass a law to block it. You have no right, as a government employee, to use your business device for whatever purpose you want. That's never been the case.