5 ms·

Since tiktok is not mentioned in the bill I find this hard to believe.

bioemerl 4y ago
It would involve any attempt to bypass regulations placed down in the sake of national security, which would be something like using a VPN in order to give money to TikTok.
- gruez 4y ago
  That sounds... fine? It's like having a bill that says you can't join designated terrorist organizations or fund money to them, and if you try to use VPNs to cover your tracks or to send payments to them it's also punishable.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    I think it's fine. The lawmakers aren't evil mustache twirling villains, they're trying to create a law and they wrote it as sensibly as they reasonably would in their circumstance and people on the internet are blowing it way out of proportion. Blowing things up like this is a thing the internet, America in general, has problems with. The TTP, If you remember that one, was another one that people absolutely tried to crush and it turned out it was actually a really good idea that we should have been part of. The reaction to this is scarily similar, and it's going to be resulting in a similar loss if it gets shut down. In all hopes they buckle down, put down some revisions to neuter some of the more egregious things people are complaining about, and the law passes with those extra protections.
    - henriquez 4y ago
      The TPP was not a good idea and it was great that Trump shut it down.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us. Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.
        lenkite 4y ago
        Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.” The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot. They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.
        lenkite 4y ago
        They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens. > because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-workers-reject-the-tpp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke... https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/ https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...
    - behringer 4y ago
      Villains who twirl their moustache are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged. - Picard
  - p1necone 4y ago
    It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs through a VPN, either should be equally illegal.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 4y ago
      >It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though "VPN" occurs exactly zero times in the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?format=txt&r=15&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
      - p1necone 4y ago
        Thanks, I need to stop taking comments at face value when people are talking about stuff like this.
        haswell 4y ago
        While VPNs are not mentioned explicitly, there is very clear language that talks about attempting to evade the rules, which would clearly apply to VPNs. Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. I’ve encountered quite a few “but the bill says nothing about VPNs” comments and those seem to be problematic takes. The bill doesn’t mention TikTok either.
        gruez 4y ago
        >Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. Source?
        haswell 4y ago
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The text defines transaction to include the act of transmitting data. You wouldn't need to give them money, by a plain reading a simple HTTP request would be illegal.
- egeozcan 4y ago
  Is viewing ads in TikTok giving them money? What if I click through and buy the item and they get a cut? What about sending gifts to creators from which they get a cut? What if all done via cryptocurrency? Gift cards? Someone bought a TikTok voucher in another country, gifted to me that I redeemed via VPN? It also says transactions or any other actions... So, I let myself be tracked by TikTok by using a VPN, am I a criminal?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    These are all good questions, and questions like this generally gets settled through court cases. 9 times out of 10 you can basically assume, " reasonability". Does viewing ads in TikTok give them money? I would expect not, because you're not getting the money. Posting ads on there certainly would count. Giving gifts to creators probably would also count, although I'm sure a court would consider that incredibly minor, it would probably never get enforced, and even if it did it would probably be some tiny paltry amount. The bank who lets that transaction happen however, might get in trouble. If you let yourself be tracked using a VPN...? I suspect the answer to that question is going to lie in why you're doing that. Inadvertently? Almost certainly not going to be an issue. Do you have some sort of ulterior motive? It's probably going to be a problem. After all, you're literally committing espionage for a foreign adversary of the United States in this case. Remember that law is backed by court cases, and courts tend to be pretty reasonable. These things aren't programmed, they're human
enraged_camel 4y ago
Since it's unconstitutional for bills to target individual people or companies, they are never mentioned by name in the text. This is not some sort of conspiracy.

It would involve any attempt to bypass regulations placed down in the sake of national security, which would be something like using a VPN in order to give money to TikTok.

gruez 4y ago
That sounds... fine? It's like having a bill that says you can't join designated terrorist organizations or fund money to them, and if you try to use VPNs to cover your tracks or to send payments to them it's also punishable.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  I think it's fine. The lawmakers aren't evil mustache twirling villains, they're trying to create a law and they wrote it as sensibly as they reasonably would in their circumstance and people on the internet are blowing it way out of proportion. Blowing things up like this is a thing the internet, America in general, has problems with. The TTP, If you remember that one, was another one that people absolutely tried to crush and it turned out it was actually a really good idea that we should have been part of. The reaction to this is scarily similar, and it's going to be resulting in a similar loss if it gets shut down. In all hopes they buckle down, put down some revisions to neuter some of the more egregious things people are complaining about, and the law passes with those extra protections.
  - henriquez 4y ago
    The TPP was not a good idea and it was great that Trump shut it down.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      It was a very good idea, and by shutting it down we basically handed a huge amount of power to China in the degree deal between a bunch of southeast Asian nations is one led by them instead of us. Trump's withdrawal from that agreement was one of the most catastrophic decisions the United States government has made in the last 20 years.
      - lenkite 4y ago
        Even his opponent: Hillary Clinton was firmly against the TPP: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.” The TPP's 5,000+ pages actually had very little to do with trade. Instead, corporations tried to turn it into a wish list for policies that they knew would never pass through Congress.
        bioemerl 4y ago
        Both Hillary and Obama were in support of the law before populist outrage showed up and they had to pivot. They were in favor of it because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. Half of the restrictions and changes were ones that literally didn't affect America and just brought other countries up to the Americans standard.
        lenkite 4y ago
        They pivoted because a extraordinary, vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were against the TPP - extensive opinion polling already showed this. Calling this as as "populist" instead of "democratic" is a new spin nowadays to naysay the beliefs of American citizens. > because it was a good law, and it further an American interests in the wider world. No, it wasn't a good law. It would have raised the cost of drugs significantly. The pharma bros are already billionaires. We don't need them to get richer. It had no protection for low-income American workers - esp auto workers. TPP would have led to a mass offshoring of jobs. Frankly, I do not wish this to devolve into a discussion on TPP, because its disadvantages and non-trading related addendums were already covered by media on both the left and the right. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454511/tpp-cost-medicine https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-workers-reject-the-tpp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/united-auto-worke... https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-workers/ https://time.com/4065267/trans-pacific-partnership-american-...
  - behringer 4y ago
    Villains who twirl their moustache are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged. - Picard
- p1necone 4y ago
  It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though. It shouldn't matter whether you funded terrorist organizations over the public internet vs through a VPN, either should be equally illegal.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 4y ago
    >It seems completely unnecessary to specifically mention VPNs though "VPN" occurs exactly zero times in the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?format=txt&r=15&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
    - p1necone 4y ago
      Thanks, I need to stop taking comments at face value when people are talking about stuff like this.
      - haswell 4y ago
        While VPNs are not mentioned explicitly, there is very clear language that talks about attempting to evade the rules, which would clearly apply to VPNs. Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. I’ve encountered quite a few “but the bill says nothing about VPNs” comments and those seem to be problematic takes. The bill doesn’t mention TikTok either.
        gruez 4y ago
        >Furthermore, some have pointed out that the language of the bill could force providers to start tracking what users do. Source?
        haswell 4y ago
sudosysgen 4y ago
The text defines transaction to include the act of transmitting data. You wouldn't need to give them money, by a plain reading a simple HTTP request would be illegal.
egeozcan 4y ago
Is viewing ads in TikTok giving them money? What if I click through and buy the item and they get a cut? What about sending gifts to creators from which they get a cut? What if all done via cryptocurrency? Gift cards? Someone bought a TikTok voucher in another country, gifted to me that I redeemed via VPN? It also says transactions or any other actions... So, I let myself be tracked by TikTok by using a VPN, am I a criminal?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  These are all good questions, and questions like this generally gets settled through court cases. 9 times out of 10 you can basically assume, " reasonability". Does viewing ads in TikTok give them money? I would expect not, because you're not getting the money. Posting ads on there certainly would count. Giving gifts to creators probably would also count, although I'm sure a court would consider that incredibly minor, it would probably never get enforced, and even if it did it would probably be some tiny paltry amount. The bank who lets that transaction happen however, might get in trouble. If you let yourself be tracked using a VPN...? I suspect the answer to that question is going to lie in why you're doing that. Inadvertently? Almost certainly not going to be an issue. Do you have some sort of ulterior motive? It's probably going to be a problem. After all, you're literally committing espionage for a foreign adversary of the United States in this case. Remember that law is backed by court cases, and courts tend to be pretty reasonable. These things aren't programmed, they're human

enraged_camel 4y ago

Since it's unconstitutional for bills to target individual people or companies, they are never mentioned by name in the text. This is not some sort of conspiracy.