4 ms·

This bill went from being bipartisan to wildly radioactive overnight. I am seeing sites from the entire US political spectrum, from far right to far left and m

This bill went from being bipartisan to wildly radioactive overnight. I am seeing sites from the entire US political spectrum, from far right to far left and moderates in between, techy and non techy, writing the same negative things about it. Some senators (like Marco Rubio per his latest Tweets) are already distancing themselves from the bill. I am still worried about another attempt... but I am not losing any sleep over RESTRICT. It is dead as a doornail.

Dalewyn 4y ago
[flagged]
- losteric 4y ago
  What are your critiques of the OP article? This bill seems indisputably bad. One could just as easily say vague American "powers that be" were stopped rushing the law through congressional lobbying propaganda.
- warent 4y ago
  Just read the bill for yourself if you want to cut through the propaganda, that's what I did. The bill is awful. It gives the Secretary broad sweeping authority to access everything about everyone who they think is "suspicious", without any kind of safeguards or criteria for what makes someone suspicious. They then have the authority to prosecute that person if they determine them to be bringing harm to the US, without any clarification of what that even means. The law has specific language for defining what a social media company is (over 1,000,000 users), but the law still seems to apply beyond just companies, extending to everyone including individuals.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Having read through the bill[1], yeah: I'm in support of the bill. The bill specifically covers companies and businesses ("entities") held by "foreign adversaries" with more than 1 million "active users" or "units sold" in a given 365 day period, so the scope is narrow; the bill doesn't permit wanton authority over businesses period. Neither is the "VPNs will be blocked!" narrative anything more than a narrative, propaganda. The cited passage, section 11 subsection 2 paragraph F is boilerplate legalese prohibiting violation ("evasion") of the bill and any subsequent actions that come from it. This together with the Chinese propaganda machine seemingly going full bore convinces me even harder in seeing this bill passed into law. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
    - warent 4y ago
      Our disagreement here is just an indicator of how bills need to be written in a different plain English way so that laypeople like us can mutually understand it (I'm assuming you're a layperson like me) How do you reconcile your understanding with the entirety of sections 3 and 5? IN GENERAL The Secretary ... shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person "Any person" of any "covered transaction" A covered transaction is defined as a transaction by a foreign entity and includes any other transaction ... subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary So this covers anything arbitrarily prescribed by the Secretary. The definition of a "covered holding" is the same. It's foreign holdings and any other holding subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        A "covered transaction" is defined as any transaction where a "covered entity", which is to say a "foreign adversary", has any interest. A "covered holding" likewise concerns any holdings held by a "foreign adversary", and also holdings "the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act". A fuller citation of section 3 is as follows: >to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines— >(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of— >(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons. That narrows the scope of this bill and the Secretary's powers to holdings and transactions concerning foreign adversaries, initiated by any person or with respect to property, which have more than 1 million active users or units sold in a given 365 day period, of which might pose unacceptable risks to the United States and Americans. From the perspective of the government's duty to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare", this all sounds very reasonable to me. The key thing you seem to be missing is this is talking about foreign adversaries, not foreign entities. IANAL, but as legalese goes this bill is actually pretty easy to read if one has a solid understanding of English.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  The Chinese govt doesn't control the U.S. tech press, or the political extremists, thats for sure.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
They'll just slip it in to the next omnibus bill in it's entirety and not say a word about it.
- ProllyInfamous 4y ago
  This guy governments. How it's done =(
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Let's hope so. I am not from the US but I have no illusions that this would have a vast negative effect on the net and increase governmental overreach. This is the source of why some people even consider Tiktok a strategical threat.

Dalewyn 4y ago

[flagged]

losteric 4y ago
What are your critiques of the OP article? This bill seems indisputably bad. One could just as easily say vague American "powers that be" were stopped rushing the law through congressional lobbying propaganda.
warent 4y ago
Just read the bill for yourself if you want to cut through the propaganda, that's what I did. The bill is awful. It gives the Secretary broad sweeping authority to access everything about everyone who they think is "suspicious", without any kind of safeguards or criteria for what makes someone suspicious. They then have the authority to prosecute that person if they determine them to be bringing harm to the US, without any clarification of what that even means. The law has specific language for defining what a social media company is (over 1,000,000 users), but the law still seems to apply beyond just companies, extending to everyone including individuals.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Having read through the bill[1], yeah: I'm in support of the bill. The bill specifically covers companies and businesses ("entities") held by "foreign adversaries" with more than 1 million "active users" or "units sold" in a given 365 day period, so the scope is narrow; the bill doesn't permit wanton authority over businesses period. Neither is the "VPNs will be blocked!" narrative anything more than a narrative, propaganda. The cited passage, section 11 subsection 2 paragraph F is boilerplate legalese prohibiting violation ("evasion") of the bill and any subsequent actions that come from it. This together with the Chinese propaganda machine seemingly going full bore convinces me even harder in seeing this bill passed into law. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
  - warent 4y ago
    Our disagreement here is just an indicator of how bills need to be written in a different plain English way so that laypeople like us can mutually understand it (I'm assuming you're a layperson like me) How do you reconcile your understanding with the entirety of sections 3 and 5? IN GENERAL The Secretary ... shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person "Any person" of any "covered transaction" A covered transaction is defined as a transaction by a foreign entity and includes any other transaction ... subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary So this covers anything arbitrarily prescribed by the Secretary. The definition of a "covered holding" is the same. It's foreign holdings and any other holding subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      A "covered transaction" is defined as any transaction where a "covered entity", which is to say a "foreign adversary", has any interest. A "covered holding" likewise concerns any holdings held by a "foreign adversary", and also holdings "the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act". A fuller citation of section 3 is as follows: >to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines— >(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of— >(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons. That narrows the scope of this bill and the Secretary's powers to holdings and transactions concerning foreign adversaries, initiated by any person or with respect to property, which have more than 1 million active users or units sold in a given 365 day period, of which might pose unacceptable risks to the United States and Americans. From the perspective of the government's duty to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare", this all sounds very reasonable to me. The key thing you seem to be missing is this is talking about foreign adversaries, not foreign entities. IANAL, but as legalese goes this bill is actually pretty easy to read if one has a solid understanding of English.
brucethemoose2 4y ago
The Chinese govt doesn't control the U.S. tech press, or the political extremists, thats for sure.

friend_and_foe 4y ago

They'll just slip it in to the next omnibus bill in it's entirety and not say a word about it.

ProllyInfamous 4y ago
This guy governments. How it's done =(

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Let's hope so. I am not from the US but I have no illusions that this would have a vast negative effect on the net and increase governmental overreach. This is the source of why some people even consider Tiktok a strategical threat.