3 ms·
Given the recent law in the US to give the NSA full access to user data without court order, forcing Tiktok to be owned by a US company makes more sense.
by icar 2y ago
Given the recent law in the US to give the NSA full access to user data without court order, forcing Tiktok to be owned by a US company makes more sense.
- wumeow 2y agoIt does not force US ownership. Read the bill.
- jtriangle 2y agoYou're right, it's "US ownership or get banned". Not just tiktok either, this will wind up applying to many companies.
- wumeow 2y ago> US ownership or get banned Wrong. Read it again very carefully.
- jtriangle 2y agoI've read the complete bill at every stage of it's development. It places substantial fines on American companies who provide services that distribute, maintain or update any sufficiently popular apps where a company is headquartered in, or has more than a 20% ownership share of the company held, in a country that has been determined to be a foreign adversary. So sure, it's not "banned', it's just that they're made completely inaccessible to US users because nobody is going to be ok with paying substantial fines in order to allow it on their networks/servers/app stores. You do realize that, in english, we often use shortcuts to refer to things right? If something is "effectively" a ban, we just call it a ban and move on, because our language provides many, many facilities to improve efficiency. You being pedantic is, remarkably, unpleasant, and speaks poorly of your overall level of social adjustment, specifically because you are using the very language you speak incorrectly as you do so.
- wumeow 2y agoYou said it required US ownership. It does not, it requires ownership by a non-foreign-adversary, which is every country in the world except 6. I’m being pedantic because the law is pedantic, and I am tired of people catastrophizing over a law they have not understood and that is similar to laws that have been in place for almost a hundred years (radio/tv stations, airlines).
- suzakus 2y agoThere aren't 6 listed countries in the bill are there? Not sure if I'm misreading. Seems like it links to another code for the countries (source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#H022F5B5A3E494C0591474D5DE3A0A4BE https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...) which lists four countries, of which China is one (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872)
- wumeow 2y agoOops, you’re right, I misremembered.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoI find it hard to believe you actually read the bill multiple times when you misstate a key aspect of it.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoit doesn't have to be owned by a US company; it just can't be owned by a Chinese company (or another country deemed adversarial to the US).