4 ms·

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.

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.