10 ms·

It's MUCH WORSE than the Patriot act. This bill is absolutely horrific. And calling it at bill to "ban TikTok" is extremely disingenuous as it egregiously goes

It's MUCH WORSE than the Patriot act. This bill is absolutely horrific. And calling it at bill to "ban TikTok" is extremely disingenuous as it egregiously goes well beyond that.

quasarj 4y ago
We need a good breakdown of it. I read it, but don't think I really understood.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  Jeremy Hambly does a decent job breaking parts of it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AynjtnJG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AynjtnJG8
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    Thanks! The worst part of this is all the comments about social networking when this bill is about punishing people who want privacy or end to end encrypted communication on their devices with 1 million dollar fine and 20 years of jail time.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  I don't need a breakdown, I already hate it.
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Why? It seems focused on only applications/products from a few countries of concern
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > Why? It seems focused on only applications/products from a few countries of concern ...or any country that the Secretary of Commerce unilaterally decides is a "national security" concern. That's an incredibly sweeping power to grant.
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    Sure, but there are natural guardrails within that... for instance if we decided to call the UK a country of national security concern it would trigger massive diplomatic and trade ramifications. Other than China you'll notice everyone else on the list basically has 0 trade volume with the U.S., so there's not much damage to the U.S. economy, but doing it to other countries would be a major escalation with economic consequences.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      No it wouldn’t because the decision wouldn’t be publicized.
      - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
        How would that be possible? I've read the text and didn't see any ability for them to not publish it, but more practically as soon as they ban an app from X country not already on the list, wouldn't it become clear in their justification for doing so that the country of origin would have been added?
- realce 4y ago
  You can't read books from Eurasia, it's against the law.
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    That's silly of course, but what about a Ractive? I think something that actively tries to collect data on you and shape your perception controlled by a geopolitical competitor should be handled carefully and potentially outlawed.
    - realce 4y ago
      So you agree that the Chinese government is doing the right thing when they block a Chinese citizen from viewing Twitter? You agree with the usage of the Great Firewall? You agree with the ability for the government to tell you what websites you can visit? If you use a VPN to read a Chinese newspaper article, you agree that the government should be allowed to imprison you and take all of your possessions? That's madness IMO. We should be making Super-TOR instead of this.
      - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
        Like I said, things "should be handled carefully and potentially outlawed." Personally I don't think your comparison holds because Twitter for instance isn't controlled by a state actor so the geopolitical issues don't really apply (unless you consider Elon controlled by China because of his dependencies on their critical mineral supply chains and market for Tesla... or by Saudi because of their funds ownership in Twitter). I don't think the hyperbole here is particularly helpful; there is clearly a national security risk to allowing a foreign competitor unfettered access to your market and control over what amounts to a major media property. Maybe you believe that this doesn't matter and shouldn't be addressed, but if you do believe it should be addressed in some way, you need the legal framework to be able to do so
      - Invictus0 4y ago
        There are many things wrong with this comparison. 1) Twitter is not an arm of the US government in the way that Tiktok and most Chinese companies are. 2) The law is not calling for the information on Tiktok to be banned. For instance, an image of a tweet saying "fuck Xi Jinping" could not be viewed in China, but an image/video of a tiktok saying "fuck biden" would be fine to view in America. 3) Tiktok is not benign like a book is. It extracts information from the user and sends it to the company servers. 4) It is trivial to use the platform to perform psyops; the company could easily mix subtly pro-china content into the feed from time to time.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
petilon 4y ago
> This bill is absolutely horrific. In what way? Explain that, and let readers decide if it is horrific.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > In what way? Explain that, and let readers decide if it is horrific. The bill allows the Secretary of Commerce to unilaterally ban products associated with countries of their choosing, with a 20 year prison sentence for any US citizen who attempts to use a VPN to circumvent the access ban.
  - FormerBandmate 4y ago
    > a 20 year prison sentence for any US citizen who attempts to use a VPN to circumvent the access ban That's fucked up and insane. It should also fail a First Amendment test easily, but that all depends on the courts
  - falcolas 4y ago
    It’s also worth noting that the Secretary of Commerce is not an elected position.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      As if trusting congressmen to ban stuff is a better option.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        Better than somebody with zero accountability to the public, with no practical oversight of their actions.
  - bratsche 4y ago
    Wow, really? That's crazy! My wife and I use WeChat because her family lives in China and we want to be able to chat and do video calls with her. If Secretary of Commerce declares that WeChat is illegal that is going to put an enormous strain on my family.

It's MUCH WORSE than the Patriot act. This bill is absolutely horrific. And calling it at bill to "ban TikTok" is extremely disingenuous as it egregiously goes well beyond that.

quasarj 4y ago

We need a good breakdown of it. I read it, but don't think I really understood.

hitpointdrew 4y ago
Jeremy Hambly does a decent job breaking parts of it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AynjtnJG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AynjtnJG8
- xiphias2 4y ago
  Thanks! The worst part of this is all the comments about social networking when this bill is about punishing people who want privacy or end to end encrypted communication on their devices with 1 million dollar fine and 20 years of jail time.
hot_gril 4y ago
I don't need a breakdown, I already hate it.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago

Why? It seems focused on only applications/products from a few countries of concern

chimeracoder 4y ago
> Why? It seems focused on only applications/products from a few countries of concern ...or any country that the Secretary of Commerce unilaterally decides is a "national security" concern. That's an incredibly sweeping power to grant.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Sure, but there are natural guardrails within that... for instance if we decided to call the UK a country of national security concern it would trigger massive diplomatic and trade ramifications. Other than China you'll notice everyone else on the list basically has 0 trade volume with the U.S., so there's not much damage to the U.S. economy, but doing it to other countries would be a major escalation with economic consequences.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    No it wouldn’t because the decision wouldn’t be publicized.
    - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      How would that be possible? I've read the text and didn't see any ability for them to not publish it, but more practically as soon as they ban an app from X country not already on the list, wouldn't it become clear in their justification for doing so that the country of origin would have been added?
realce 4y ago
You can't read books from Eurasia, it's against the law.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  That's silly of course, but what about a Ractive? I think something that actively tries to collect data on you and shape your perception controlled by a geopolitical competitor should be handled carefully and potentially outlawed.
  - realce 4y ago
    So you agree that the Chinese government is doing the right thing when they block a Chinese citizen from viewing Twitter? You agree with the usage of the Great Firewall? You agree with the ability for the government to tell you what websites you can visit? If you use a VPN to read a Chinese newspaper article, you agree that the government should be allowed to imprison you and take all of your possessions? That's madness IMO. We should be making Super-TOR instead of this.
    - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      Like I said, things "should be handled carefully and potentially outlawed." Personally I don't think your comparison holds because Twitter for instance isn't controlled by a state actor so the geopolitical issues don't really apply (unless you consider Elon controlled by China because of his dependencies on their critical mineral supply chains and market for Tesla... or by Saudi because of their funds ownership in Twitter). I don't think the hyperbole here is particularly helpful; there is clearly a national security risk to allowing a foreign competitor unfettered access to your market and control over what amounts to a major media property. Maybe you believe that this doesn't matter and shouldn't be addressed, but if you do believe it should be addressed in some way, you need the legal framework to be able to do so
    - Invictus0 4y ago
      There are many things wrong with this comparison. 1) Twitter is not an arm of the US government in the way that Tiktok and most Chinese companies are. 2) The law is not calling for the information on Tiktok to be banned. For instance, an image of a tweet saying "fuck Xi Jinping" could not be viewed in China, but an image/video of a tiktok saying "fuck biden" would be fine to view in America. 3) Tiktok is not benign like a book is. It extracts information from the user and sends it to the company servers. 4) It is trivial to use the platform to perform psyops; the company could easily mix subtly pro-china content into the feed from time to time.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

petilon 4y ago

> This bill is absolutely horrific. In what way? Explain that, and let readers decide if it is horrific.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> In what way? Explain that, and let readers decide if it is horrific. The bill allows the Secretary of Commerce to unilaterally ban products associated with countries of their choosing, with a 20 year prison sentence for any US citizen who attempts to use a VPN to circumvent the access ban.
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  > a 20 year prison sentence for any US citizen who attempts to use a VPN to circumvent the access ban That's fucked up and insane. It should also fail a First Amendment test easily, but that all depends on the courts
- falcolas 4y ago
  It’s also worth noting that the Secretary of Commerce is not an elected position.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    As if trusting congressmen to ban stuff is a better option.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Better than somebody with zero accountability to the public, with no practical oversight of their actions.
- bratsche 4y ago
  Wow, really? That's crazy! My wife and I use WeChat because her family lives in China and we want to be able to chat and do video calls with her. If Secretary of Commerce declares that WeChat is illegal that is going to put an enormous strain on my family.