5 ms·

The actual legislation: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf Seems facially unconstitutional. Will

The actual legislation: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf Seems facially unconstitutional. Will maybe force a proper court decision on whether the Bills of Attainder clause applies to corporations. Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like? Don't like data about your constituents being in the possession of a company with ownership ties to the Chinese government or communist party? Do the work to describe what kind of 'ties' are the ones that worry you, what kind of entities are the ones you don't like, what kind of data you don't like being in their hands, and write a law that codifies that.

edgyquant 3y ago
Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries. US companies are a different problem with different solutions.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Do states? (edit - oops, see correction below) There's nothing in this law that would unban TikTok if its ownership were transferred to a US corporation.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    As I understand it, nope. States can't negotiate treaties on the US' behalf. Commerce and sanctions would fall under that as I understand it. States also can't regulate interstate trade, which I believe trying to penalize Apple and Google would constitute, since neither has a office in Montana.
    - webstrand 3y ago
      Couldn't it target the shops and companies that sell devices with Apple/Google app stores on them, instead?
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Why can California require auto manufacturers to comply with their emissions standards if it is in effect regulating interstate trade?
      - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
        California doesn't require auto manufacturers to do anything. They require dealers and individuals to only buy cars that meet said emissions standards, on penalty of refusing to allow them to be registered to be driven on the state's roads.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - jameshart 3y ago
    Actually - correcting myself. There IS a clause that unbans TikTok on ownership transfer. I didn't read far enough down: > Section 4. Contingent voidness. [This act] is void if tiktok is acquired by or sold to a company that is not incorporated in any other country designated as a foreign adversary in 15 C.F.R. 7.4 at the time tiktok is sold or acquired. If TikTok is transferred to a company not owned by China the act goes away. So they could just do that, then reacquire the company and this law vanishes in a puff of logic.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      The law would still be on the books. Presumably it would become non-void, and immediately active, if a Chinese company repurchased TikTok from a non-Chinese company. Much like unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion became immediately active again after the recent Supreme Court ruling.
  - JdeBP 3y ago
    Yes there is. It's right there in section 4.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western apps. Fortunately in the west, countries don't have rights, people do, and citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want on the hardware devices they own. Governments that violate such rights get challenged in court.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    Aren’t there other foreign goods that you can’t get in the United States?
    - 1letterunixname 3y ago
      Apart from the asinine war drugs, risky foods, weapons, counterfeit goods, and dangerous devices, ordinary prohibited goods aren't arbitrarily decided by fiat of Big Mother. Kinder Surprise were banned due to the letter of the 1938 FFDCA law as "non-nutritive object". There's usually a regulatory reason, such as homologation on automobiles. There are some protectionist laws around types of automobiles that can be imported.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want Fortunately this isn't a restriction on citizens. Instead, is a law regulating businesses. We have all sorts of laws, regulating businesses, all the time.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      It's a very convenient arrangement - first you get a couple of tech megacorps to monopolize the device and app store market to the point where the vast majority of apps are only ever published on their platforms and through their distribution channels. And then you regulate those megacorps and claim that this has nothing to do with restricting what the citizens have access to, even though the net result is the same.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  What makes a company a "US Company"? Aren't the big social media companies all global with offices in the US and most other countries? I get that a lot were founded here, but I don't get the impression that they feel that they derive any particular allegiance to the US because of that. Isn't it to the shareholders?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Montana isn't a country.
markdeloura 3y ago
Agreed! But it's always so much easier to ban and get credit for "protecting Americans" than do the work and build a solid base for the future. We should hold our politicians to a higher standard.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  It's virtue signalling amongst white nationalists against their arch enemy: anyone not them.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like There are two issues with TikTok: privacy and national security. The latter is what this is about. (Related to e.g. our foreign media ownership rules.) The federal legislation is trying to create an extensible system for forcing divestiture based on requirements you describe. This is more ham fisted.
- mlyle 3y ago
  There's also the third issue, which is much more problematic to fix with regulation: short-form video is absolutely killing youth attention span. I know students who will ask another student a question, and then lose focus and zone out within literally 3 seconds and not hear the answer. This was not nearly as prevalent a decade ago.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the third issue, which is much more problematic to fix with regulation: short-form video is absolutely killing youth attention span We age gate tobacco, alcohol and even pornography. Is it impermeable? Of course not. Does it prevent Adam Mosseri from contemplating PornHub for Kids [1]? Yes. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/adam-mosseri-facebook-papers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/adam-mo...
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    But this ban clearly has nothing to do with that, because it's only about Tiktok and ignores all other short form video.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Yes. It also has little to do with the other point the parent of my comment mentioned (privacy), as they said.
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    Then ban all social media altogether.
mullingitover 3y ago
> Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like? Because a foreign company succeeded in the US. If Tiktok had simply done what the US wanted, and done a fire sale to a US company, Tiktok would be welcomed with open arms and there isn't a privacy violation the company could commit that would get it into real legal trouble. Tiktok would be deeply embedded in society and not having it would be like not having a telephone number. The Tiktok situation is what US companies face around the world when they enter a foreign market and dominate (see: Facebook/Google and GDPR, or Apple being forced to allow other app stores on the iPhone by the EU). Those countries suddenly discover they have principles and vigorously enforce them. This is just the first time that the US has been walloped so badly in this game that it's been forced to discover principles, too. Regulating what Tiktok does that they don't like is too hard, we might end up harming US companies that do the exact same things. So the lazy workaround is to make noise about the principles but then just target the company directly.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Not a good look among the folks in Brussels. They're probably going to push the limit even farther the next time a big piece of legislation comes around.

edgyquant 3y ago

Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries. US companies are a different problem with different solutions.

jameshart 3y ago
Do states? (edit - oops, see correction below) There's nothing in this law that would unban TikTok if its ownership were transferred to a US corporation.
- falcolas 3y ago
  As I understand it, nope. States can't negotiate treaties on the US' behalf. Commerce and sanctions would fall under that as I understand it. States also can't regulate interstate trade, which I believe trying to penalize Apple and Google would constitute, since neither has a office in Montana.
  - webstrand 3y ago
    Couldn't it target the shops and companies that sell devices with Apple/Google app stores on them, instead?
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Why can California require auto manufacturers to comply with their emissions standards if it is in effect regulating interstate trade?
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      California doesn't require auto manufacturers to do anything. They require dealers and individuals to only buy cars that meet said emissions standards, on penalty of refusing to allow them to be registered to be driven on the state's roads.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- jameshart 3y ago
  Actually - correcting myself. There IS a clause that unbans TikTok on ownership transfer. I didn't read far enough down: > Section 4. Contingent voidness. [This act] is void if tiktok is acquired by or sold to a company that is not incorporated in any other country designated as a foreign adversary in 15 C.F.R. 7.4 at the time tiktok is sold or acquired. If TikTok is transferred to a company not owned by China the act goes away. So they could just do that, then reacquire the company and this law vanishes in a puff of logic.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    The law would still be on the books. Presumably it would become non-void, and immediately active, if a Chinese company repurchased TikTok from a non-Chinese company. Much like unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion became immediately active again after the recent Supreme Court ruling.
- JdeBP 3y ago
  Yes there is. It's right there in section 4.
logicchains 3y ago
>Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western apps. Fortunately in the west, countries don't have rights, people do, and citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want on the hardware devices they own. Governments that violate such rights get challenged in court.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Aren’t there other foreign goods that you can’t get in the United States?
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    Apart from the asinine war drugs, risky foods, weapons, counterfeit goods, and dangerous devices, ordinary prohibited goods aren't arbitrarily decided by fiat of Big Mother. Kinder Surprise were banned due to the letter of the 1938 FFDCA law as "non-nutritive object". There's usually a regulatory reason, such as homologation on automobiles. There are some protectionist laws around types of automobiles that can be imported.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want Fortunately this isn't a restriction on citizens. Instead, is a law regulating businesses. We have all sorts of laws, regulating businesses, all the time.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    It's a very convenient arrangement - first you get a couple of tech megacorps to monopolize the device and app store market to the point where the vast majority of apps are only ever published on their platforms and through their distribution channels. And then you regulate those megacorps and claim that this has nothing to do with restricting what the citizens have access to, even though the net result is the same.
hotpotamus 3y ago
What makes a company a "US Company"? Aren't the big social media companies all global with offices in the US and most other countries? I get that a lot were founded here, but I don't get the impression that they feel that they derive any particular allegiance to the US because of that. Isn't it to the shareholders?
anigbrowl 3y ago
Montana isn't a country.

markdeloura 3y ago

Agreed! But it's always so much easier to ban and get credit for "protecting Americans" than do the work and build a solid base for the future. We should hold our politicians to a higher standard.

1letterunixname 3y ago
It's virtue signalling amongst white nationalists against their arch enemy: anyone not them.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like There are two issues with TikTok: privacy and national security. The latter is what this is about. (Related to e.g. our foreign media ownership rules.) The federal legislation is trying to create an extensible system for forcing divestiture based on requirements you describe. This is more ham fisted.

mlyle 3y ago
There's also the third issue, which is much more problematic to fix with regulation: short-form video is absolutely killing youth attention span. I know students who will ask another student a question, and then lose focus and zone out within literally 3 seconds and not hear the answer. This was not nearly as prevalent a decade ago.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the third issue, which is much more problematic to fix with regulation: short-form video is absolutely killing youth attention span We age gate tobacco, alcohol and even pornography. Is it impermeable? Of course not. Does it prevent Adam Mosseri from contemplating PornHub for Kids [1]? Yes. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/adam-mosseri-facebook-papers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/adam-mo...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  But this ban clearly has nothing to do with that, because it's only about Tiktok and ignores all other short form video.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Yes. It also has little to do with the other point the parent of my comment mentioned (privacy), as they said.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  Then ban all social media altogether.

mullingitover 3y ago

> Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like? Because a foreign company succeeded in the US. If Tiktok had simply done what the US wanted, and done a fire sale to a US company, Tiktok would be welcomed with open arms and there isn't a privacy violation the company could commit that would get it into real legal trouble. Tiktok would be deeply embedded in society and not having it would be like not having a telephone number. The Tiktok situation is what US companies face around the world when they enter a foreign market and dominate (see: Facebook/Google and GDPR, or Apple being forced to allow other app stores on the iPhone by the EU). Those countries suddenly discover they have principles and vigorously enforce them. This is just the first time that the US has been walloped so badly in this game that it's been forced to discover principles, too. Regulating what Tiktok does that they don't like is too hard, we might end up harming US companies that do the exact same things. So the lazy workaround is to make noise about the principles but then just target the company directly.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Not a good look among the folks in Brussels. They're probably going to push the limit even farther the next time a big piece of legislation comes around.