3 ms·

The bill only applies to applications operated or controlled by ByteDance, TikTok or any subsidiary/successor to ByteDance or TikTok or one controlled directly

The bill only applies to applications operated or controlled by ByteDance, TikTok or any subsidiary/successor to ByteDance or TikTok or one controlled directly or indirectly by them. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr7521/text/rfs#link=2_g_3&nearest=HB5568894B1D94B058BC0D19DB8093F39 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr7521/text/rfs#l...

anonym29 3y ago
Your post is factually inaccurate. You're referring to section (g)(3)(A)(i) and (g)(3)(A)(ii). Those are two of the categories the bill applies to under (g)(3)(A), however, you've completely failed to mention the entirety of the (g)(3)(B) categories. Categories the bill also applies to per (g)(3)(B) that you did not mention include: (g)(3)(B)(i) - is controlled by a foreign adversary; and that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— (g)(3)(B)(i)(I) - a public notice proposing such determination; and (g)(3)(B)(i)(II) - a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. Maybe Biden decides that Hackernoon has users who are Russian state actors spreading "disinformation" (true, real, factual information that you were not supposed to know, like the lab leak hypothesis, Hunter Biden's laptop containing evidence of his corruption alongside a bunch of victimless "crimes", Nancy Pelosi committing illegal insider trading, Hilary Clinton operating an unlawful email server, etc), and therefore HN constitutes a "significant threat to the national security of the United States". That sounds unrealistic to you? How about that happening to a politically disfavored owner of a company that is already being routinely snubbed by the white house, like Musk/Twitter?
- wumeow 3y ago
  Please reread the definition of “controlled by a foreign adversary“ in section g1.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    Please reread the definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary" in section (g)(1)(B). Hypothetical scenario: Twenty Chinese companies each take a 1% stake in your startup. In that scenario, your company is now "controlled by a foreign adversary", and you, the non-foreign majority shareholder, can be forced to divest, under the current language of this bill.
    - wumeow 3y ago
      This won’t happen because the cost/benefit ratio of attempting this is extremely high.
      - anonym29 3y ago
        Prohibitive to all except powerful global adversaries attempting to influence world events with unrealistically massive dark budgets that come from who knows where? The Pentagon's just failed it's financial audit for the 6th year in a row. The US citizens have no clue where those trillions went - and that's just the stuff that's on the budget that the public knows about. Who knows what other sources of funding they have? We know even going back to the church commission that the intelligence agencies commit crimes in the course of intelligence gathering, all perfectly excusable with some hand waving and invocation of the magic spell "matter of national security". We also know US intelligence agencies routinely cooperate with foreign partners to spy on people those spies can't spy on due to constitutional restrictions, and then share the intelligence. It's a quid-pro-quo arrangement where they both serve as loopholes for eachother's constitutional protections. Who's to say the CIA doesn't have a few contacts over at the Chinese equivalent who would happily allow Chinese citizens to take partial control of an American company... it's a win for China, and it would be a win for American intelligence who wanted to "frame" a domestic media empire, guilty of disobedience with the unspoken mandates of ideological conformity enforcement, such as Twitter. It's a win-win for everyone except Twitter, the Twitter shareholders, and the Twitter customers who valued their free speech in that situation. You can call that possibility a far-fetched fever dream, you can resort to personal attacks against my character, but no matter what refutation you offer, my amygdala's response is "just give it a few years, let's wait and see". I don't mind admitting if I'm wrong and nothing like that ever happens. I'd hope for as much were I not so rationally pessimistic.

anonym29 3y ago

Your post is factually inaccurate. You're referring to section (g)(3)(A)(i) and (g)(3)(A)(ii). Those are two of the categories the bill applies to under (g)(3)(A), however, you've completely failed to mention the entirety of the (g)(3)(B) categories. Categories the bill also applies to per (g)(3)(B) that you did not mention include: (g)(3)(B)(i) - is controlled by a foreign adversary; and that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— (g)(3)(B)(i)(I) - a public notice proposing such determination; and (g)(3)(B)(i)(II) - a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. Maybe Biden decides that Hackernoon has users who are Russian state actors spreading "disinformation" (true, real, factual information that you were not supposed to know, like the lab leak hypothesis, Hunter Biden's laptop containing evidence of his corruption alongside a bunch of victimless "crimes", Nancy Pelosi committing illegal insider trading, Hilary Clinton operating an unlawful email server, etc), and therefore HN constitutes a "significant threat to the national security of the United States". That sounds unrealistic to you? How about that happening to a politically disfavored owner of a company that is already being routinely snubbed by the white house, like Musk/Twitter?

wumeow 3y ago
Please reread the definition of “controlled by a foreign adversary“ in section g1.
- anonym29 3y ago
  Please reread the definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary" in section (g)(1)(B). Hypothetical scenario: Twenty Chinese companies each take a 1% stake in your startup. In that scenario, your company is now "controlled by a foreign adversary", and you, the non-foreign majority shareholder, can be forced to divest, under the current language of this bill.
  - wumeow 3y ago
    This won’t happen because the cost/benefit ratio of attempting this is extremely high.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Prohibitive to all except powerful global adversaries attempting to influence world events with unrealistically massive dark budgets that come from who knows where? The Pentagon's just failed it's financial audit for the 6th year in a row. The US citizens have no clue where those trillions went - and that's just the stuff that's on the budget that the public knows about. Who knows what other sources of funding they have? We know even going back to the church commission that the intelligence agencies commit crimes in the course of intelligence gathering, all perfectly excusable with some hand waving and invocation of the magic spell "matter of national security". We also know US intelligence agencies routinely cooperate with foreign partners to spy on people those spies can't spy on due to constitutional restrictions, and then share the intelligence. It's a quid-pro-quo arrangement where they both serve as loopholes for eachother's constitutional protections. Who's to say the CIA doesn't have a few contacts over at the Chinese equivalent who would happily allow Chinese citizens to take partial control of an American company... it's a win for China, and it would be a win for American intelligence who wanted to "frame" a domestic media empire, guilty of disobedience with the unspoken mandates of ideological conformity enforcement, such as Twitter. It's a win-win for everyone except Twitter, the Twitter shareholders, and the Twitter customers who valued their free speech in that situation. You can call that possibility a far-fetched fever dream, you can resort to personal attacks against my character, but no matter what refutation you offer, my amygdala's response is "just give it a few years, let's wait and see". I don't mind admitting if I'm wrong and nothing like that ever happens. I'd hope for as much were I not so rationally pessimistic.