4 ms·

It’s going to pass Congress, signed into law. Then a federal judge will issue a preliminary injunction blocking it on first amendment grounds just like what hap

by Leary 3y ago

It’s going to pass Congress, signed into law. Then a federal judge will issue a preliminary injunction blocking it on first amendment grounds just like what happened both times with the Montana ban in 2023 and trumps executive order in 2020

nadermx 3y ago
This feels mostly right. Although, it may not make it past the senate, and it might not get signed if it goes by the president. Especially since he's campaigning on TikTok. What amazes me is how people's view in these threads are for a ban. For a counter point, the EFF thinks congress should not ban apps[0] [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/congress-should-give-unconstitutional-tiktok-bans https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/congress-should-give-u...
- Miner49er 3y ago
  Biden said he would sign it.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    And then presumably smacked down in the courts for an obvious 1A violation. Is there any legal reason they think surely this one is constitutional?
    - Miner49er 3y ago
      That's what confuses me. Surely they know it likely won't survive the courts. So maybe they are banning it to win points with voters, but it doesn't seem like something that would be popular with the voters. So I'm left wondering why there's so much motivation in Congress to do this.
      - nebula8804 3y ago
        Who are the people that want it? Lets put aside the people that don't want it. I can think of the following: 1. American tech companies 2. AIPAC 3. "The Deep State" 4. Maybe "bleeding heart American boomers"? Is this a large enough group to push bills through? Seems like it. The reason we put aside people who don't want it is because to push back against a bill requires at least an equal amount of effort that it took to get it going, usually more (see right to repair legislation, fight over DMCA provisions etc.). So unless you believe the people that don't want it are really more powerful than all of the above it makes sense why its going through.
- SteveNuts 3y ago
  This seems like we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with the next thing that pops up (perhaps an even more nefarious or nebulously owned app). Why would we not create better data privacy laws and/or ban the sale/transfer of PII to enemy countries if that's the problem we're trying to solve?
  - zaphar 3y ago
    Because that is not the really the whole problem we are trying to solve. At root of the TikTok problem is the fact that a nation like China is not playing on a level playing field in our Free Market. A free market works when all the participants are playing on a level playing field. TikTok is not because China as a country does not believe or follow free market principles. As such to further their national goals they will happily bend and break all of our rules with no real way for us to prevent or even detect it. You can't treat Chinese companies the same way as US companies or even most European countries. They won't play by the rules. You have to treat them differently. The experiment we started in the 90's to try to export Free Market to the world was interesting but the data shows that it doesn't actually work in Autocratic countries. It's time to stop pretending like it produces good outcomes overall.
    - frumper 3y ago
      This bill doesn't even address that. If you want to ban Chinese owned companies because they ban ours, then present that. This is 1 company being targeted, with the potential for maybe some more later. That leaves all the rest operating as normal.
    - SteveNuts 3y ago
      To be honest, I still don't see the issue here. TikTok is tying into existing APIs that any app can also use. There is nothing special there other than the user's data may end up in the Chinese government's hands (but... again, TikTok isn't special there). I think we really need to think about the problem we're trying to solve here carefully, because saying "you can't watch these types of videos because reasons" is the slippery slope of all slippery slopes. ETA: I do agree that TikTok is probably a bad thing overall, realistically it could be used to subtly social engineer the entire US population by controlling the content people see. But I don't think just outright banning TikTok is the answer. But didn't Facebook also do the same thing in the election? What are the ramifications for something like Youtube which tailors your recommended videos based on your history (you watch one Joe Rogan clip and now it starts to show right wing/conspiracy videos).
tgv 3y ago
Not an expert at all, but does freedom of speech hold for foreigners/foreign entities? Apart from the fact that to me an app is not speech, but that's an entirely different matter.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  No, but the First amendment covers Americans' right to receive information, even foreign propaganda.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
Isn't this different in that it's not blocking TikTok but instead forcing the parent to sell the American division? There's plenty of precedent for that succeeding (including relatively recently where a Chinese company was forced to end plans for an IPO and sell Grindr). This is unlikely to be blocked on First Amendment grounds simply because they're not blocking speech, just forcing an ownership change (I am definitely not a lawyer though so I could be wrong).
groby_b 3y ago
We're all clear on that the ultimate outcome depends on which lobbyists pay better, right?
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Why are pre-existing rules around foreign ownership of media not tossed by a judge then?

by Leary 3y ago

nadermx 3y ago

This feels mostly right. Although, it may not make it past the senate, and it might not get signed if it goes by the president. Especially since he's campaigning on TikTok. What amazes me is how people's view in these threads are for a ban. For a counter point, the EFF thinks congress should not ban apps[0] [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/congress-should-give-unconstitutional-tiktok-bans https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/congress-should-give-u...

Miner49er 3y ago
Biden said he would sign it.
- Spivak 3y ago
  And then presumably smacked down in the courts for an obvious 1A violation. Is there any legal reason they think surely this one is constitutional?
  - Miner49er 3y ago
    That's what confuses me. Surely they know it likely won't survive the courts. So maybe they are banning it to win points with voters, but it doesn't seem like something that would be popular with the voters. So I'm left wondering why there's so much motivation in Congress to do this.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      Who are the people that want it? Lets put aside the people that don't want it. I can think of the following: 1. American tech companies 2. AIPAC 3. "The Deep State" 4. Maybe "bleeding heart American boomers"? Is this a large enough group to push bills through? Seems like it. The reason we put aside people who don't want it is because to push back against a bill requires at least an equal amount of effort that it took to get it going, usually more (see right to repair legislation, fight over DMCA provisions etc.). So unless you believe the people that don't want it are really more powerful than all of the above it makes sense why its going through.
SteveNuts 3y ago
This seems like we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with the next thing that pops up (perhaps an even more nefarious or nebulously owned app). Why would we not create better data privacy laws and/or ban the sale/transfer of PII to enemy countries if that's the problem we're trying to solve?
- zaphar 3y ago
  Because that is not the really the whole problem we are trying to solve. At root of the TikTok problem is the fact that a nation like China is not playing on a level playing field in our Free Market. A free market works when all the participants are playing on a level playing field. TikTok is not because China as a country does not believe or follow free market principles. As such to further their national goals they will happily bend and break all of our rules with no real way for us to prevent or even detect it. You can't treat Chinese companies the same way as US companies or even most European countries. They won't play by the rules. You have to treat them differently. The experiment we started in the 90's to try to export Free Market to the world was interesting but the data shows that it doesn't actually work in Autocratic countries. It's time to stop pretending like it produces good outcomes overall.
  - frumper 3y ago
    This bill doesn't even address that. If you want to ban Chinese owned companies because they ban ours, then present that. This is 1 company being targeted, with the potential for maybe some more later. That leaves all the rest operating as normal.
  - SteveNuts 3y ago
    To be honest, I still don't see the issue here. TikTok is tying into existing APIs that any app can also use. There is nothing special there other than the user's data may end up in the Chinese government's hands (but... again, TikTok isn't special there). I think we really need to think about the problem we're trying to solve here carefully, because saying "you can't watch these types of videos because reasons" is the slippery slope of all slippery slopes. ETA: I do agree that TikTok is probably a bad thing overall, realistically it could be used to subtly social engineer the entire US population by controlling the content people see. But I don't think just outright banning TikTok is the answer. But didn't Facebook also do the same thing in the election? What are the ramifications for something like Youtube which tailors your recommended videos based on your history (you watch one Joe Rogan clip and now it starts to show right wing/conspiracy videos).

tgv 3y ago

Not an expert at all, but does freedom of speech hold for foreigners/foreign entities? Apart from the fact that to me an app is not speech, but that's an entirely different matter.

Miner49er 3y ago
No, but the First amendment covers Americans' right to receive information, even foreign propaganda.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

apocalyptic0n3 3y ago

Isn't this different in that it's not blocking TikTok but instead forcing the parent to sell the American division? There's plenty of precedent for that succeeding (including relatively recently where a Chinese company was forced to end plans for an IPO and sell Grindr). This is unlikely to be blocked on First Amendment grounds simply because they're not blocking speech, just forcing an ownership change (I am definitely not a lawyer though so I could be wrong).

groby_b 3y ago

We're all clear on that the ultimate outcome depends on which lobbyists pay better, right?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

Why are pre-existing rules around foreign ownership of media not tossed by a judge then?