6 ms·

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effe

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_Inc._v._FCC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In...)

curiousllama 2y ago
That's a great point. Hadn't thought about that angle
yobid20 2y ago
Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply. The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.
- concinds 2y ago
  The EFF disagrees. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supreme-courts-decision-uphold-tiktok-ban https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre...
  - airstrike 2y ago
    The Supreme Court doesn't.
    - garbagewoman 2y ago
      The supreme court says a lot of things.
      - airstrike 2y ago
        So does the EFF, but they have no say in legal matters, so their opinion here is irrelevant, whereas the Supreme Court's opinion is final.
        Spivak 2y ago
        Sure but even the supreme court disagrees with the supreme court. Treating their rulings as the best or canonical interpretation of a case doesn't make much sense. It's not like any interpretation is valid but there are plenty of valid ones.
        airstrike 2y ago
        By definition, the Supreme Court's decision _is_ the canonical interpretation. Whether you disagree with the decision has no bearing on the matter. And of course it makes sense, because the legal system was created by the very laws it upholds. If you think it should be different, then you'll have to convince a lot of people to change a lot of laws and probably parts of the US constitution
        tivert 2y ago
        > Treating their rulings as the best or canonical interpretation of a case doesn't make much sense. It does, because the Supreme Court's ruling is the legally binding interpretation. The EFF are just some people with an non-legally binding opinions.
        airstrike 2y ago
        It boggles the mind that this comment is being downvoted for literally stating facts. People really have their fingers in their ears with this topic.
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        And what they say matters a whole lot more than what the eff says.
    - cute_boi 2y ago
      Just because Supreme court said it doesn't mean they aren't heavily biased.
      - monocularvision 2y ago
        What exactly do you mean here by using the term “biased”? In what way is the Supreme Court “biased”?
      - Fidelix 2y ago
        Yeah, and the EFF is in no way biased. at all.
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  This is affecting the free speech rights of US citizens directly. You might wish it was as simple as you try to portray it, but it clearly isn’t
  - soerxpso 2y ago
    This is not affecting US citizens' legal free speech rights. You have the right to say what you want; you don't have the right to say it on a specific platform. You had free speech without TikTok before it existed, and you'll have the same amount of free speech if it does not exist again.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      This is exactly the simplistic framing the person you replied to is talking about. So let's take an absurd extreme. The government designates a 1x1 mile "free speech zone" in the middle of Wyoming and says you're not allowed to speak anywhere else. You have the same amount of free speech as you did before, right? Another extreme, let's say the government declared that you may speak freely but only by filling out a web form routed to Dave. Great guy. I mean they haven't technically taken away your right to speak? And someone will hear what you say. Both of these would he flagrant violations of 1A as I'm sure you'd agree. But what this means is that implicit to 1A the government has limits on how many places it can deny you speech and limits on how much they can deny you an audience. And you can't hide behind the "well it's just divestiture not a ban" because the courts aren't blind to POSIWID. So the more nuanced question is does banning TikTok meaningfully affect the ability of Americans to speak. And I think because of how large they are you could answer yes to this question. Americans know exactly what they're signing up for with their TT accounts and want to post there. TikTok but owned by an American would be legal so the platform itself isn't the issue. And saying TT can't operate in the US and actively preventing Americans from accessing it are two very different actions.
      - monocularvision 2y ago
        Actually, both of those examples might be legal (assuming the form is applying for a permit for some specific event/location). Time, place, and manner restrictions have long been upheld by the courts. What isn’t legal, or at least what requires strict scrutiny, are content restrictions.
- jmholla 2y ago
  > Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply. The Constitution does not place limits on which people are protected by it (you don't have to be a citizen for it to apply as the founders were looking to limit the powers of their government not their citizens). And with the expansion of those protections to corporations through Citizens United, I'd be surprised if a court found that `company + foreign != person + foreign` when they've decided `company == person`. (Well not surprised by this Court.) > The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference. The rest of your comment still stands right in my eyes. National Security has often been used as a means to bypass many things enshrined by the Constitution.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    The court has never determined that corporations are people, that’s a completely unfounded meme. What they did find was that (real, human) people have certain rights that they are able to exercise by organizing into corporations.
    - iterance 2y ago
      Eh? Unless otherwise specified, corporations satisfy the definition of a person across all federal laws per 1 USC §1, which reads: "the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals" That 1 USC §1 is not a typo: this copy appears in the first section of the first title of US code, on disambiguating common terms used in law.
    - hwillis 2y ago
      Totally beside the point. Verbatim from Citizens United: > The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ SCOTUS held that coorporations (and more broadly "associations of people") have the same rights to free speech that any individual does.
- beej71 2y ago
  > The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). This is red alert talk. We need to make damned sure we know exactly what we're asking for here and that we're not giving up more than we mean to.
- groggo 2y ago
  I get this argument, and obviously it's not stopping people from uploading the same content other places. But isn't there (or shouldn't there be) something about not banning what people can consume? Like could the US ban aljazeera? Or banning foreign books?! And still TikTok is different, because it's about the potential for quietly manipulating or curating what is seen, even if that content is produced domestically... And even if people can use other apps, there's still a community and subcultures that are being dismantled.
- russli1993 2y ago
  Cool, so is all US companies in all other countries around the world then, no protections. All countries in the world, USA just showed it is perfectly fine to steal a foreign companies' asset. Let's do that to all USA companies, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Boeing, Qualcomn, Intel, all of them. U know how rich you will be if you just got a piece of them? U know you could end homelessness, poverty, balance trade, stabilize your currency, elevate tax revenues, get free education and health care for your citizens, provide great jobs if you just got a piece of USA companies? Now you can! All of them can be Indian, Germany, France, UK, Poland, Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian, Kenyan, Egyptian companies. Everyone gets a piece, everyone gets them equally, everyone will benefit and be happy!
nilsbunger 2y ago
This is a limitation on foreign control of TikTok, not a limitation on speech. TikTok can stay in the us market if it eliminates the foreign control
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  That’s very vague and theoretical
  - compootr 2y ago
    is it? that's what TT's requirements look like
    - cma 2y ago
      Sounds very similar to the great firewall
- russli1993 2y ago
  There is limitation of foreign control of all foreign companies in all countries. USA companies can stay in the world markets if it sells itself to owners of that country. All USA companies, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Boeing, Qualcomn, Intel, all of them, can be Indian, Germany, France, UK, Poland, Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian, Kenyan, Egyptian companies.
nikanj 2y ago
The easier answer is ”This is really eating into Meta’s revenues”
imgabe 2y ago
Congress is explicitly empowered in the Constitution to regulate foreign trade. Free speech is not relevant.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago
  [dead]
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  Free speech is relevant if issues of free speech are involved, which they are here.
  - imgabe 2y ago
    There are no issues of speech. Nobody’s speech is restricted in any way. China simply isn’t allowed to sell a social media app in the US. This is just an import control like if we decided not to import lemons from Brazil or anything else. What specific speech do you think is no longer allowed?
    - dcrazy 2y ago
      > Nobody’s speech is restricted in any way. Justice Sotomayor disagrees with you [1]: > Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a brief opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She stressed that she saw “no reason to assume without deciding that the Act implicates the First Amendment because our precedent leaves no doubt that it does.” The rest of the justices sidestepped the question by assuming the First Amendment was implicated for the sake of argument. [1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tiktok-ban/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tik...
      - imgabe 2y ago
        They upheld the ban even if there were a First Amendment interest. That doesn’t mean that there is one, it means that if there were one it wouldn’t matter. They didn’t examine if the first amendment applied or not because it wouldn’t matter.
rjp0008 2y ago
Interesting that the reference linked is in reference to must-carry regulation. The tiktok scenario is the opposite though? Must-not-carry that content! I suppose Uncle Sam's sword cuts both ways.
roncesvalles 2y ago
Sweet summer child, do you think TikTok would've been banned if it didn't come into focus as a hotbed for pro-Palestinian content? "The issue in the United States for support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old. And the numbers of young people who think that Hamas' massacre was justified is shockingly and terrifyingly odd. And so we really have a TikTok problem." "[TikTok] is like Al Jazeera on steroids." - Jonathan Gleenblat, ADL. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelCrimes/comments/1i3vwll/we_have_a_tiktok_problem/?rdt=45499 https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelCrimes/comments/1i3vwll/we_ha... Something very appalling has just taken place in the USA. Old people have muzzled the free speech of young people. Americans spend more hours on TikTok than on television (but it mostly skews to young people), and now it's been taken away.
- soerxpso 2y ago
  If TikTok were sold to an American company, as the new law demands, why would that change anything about the amount of pro-Palestinian content? Just because the ADL said they don't like TikTok does not mean that's the motivation for the bill. You're still allowed to criticize Israel as much as you were a decade ago (which is to say, less than you're allowed to criticize the US, for some reason ;) but still).
  - roncesvalles 2y ago
    Because a sale is and has always been impossible since it would be an unacceptable embarrassment for China in the current climate. The divestiture is just a way to make the ban pass muster.
    - daedrdev 2y ago
      Thats a good reason why it's banned. China cannot sell. TikTok is under the strong control of their government, and so won't sell despite loosing an stupefying amount of revenue by doing so.
  - LAC-Tech 2y ago
    Which big US social media company operates without some form of involvement with the ADL? This isn't a conspiracy, the ADL openly admits and is proud of their involvement in censorship. Here they are bragging about their role in youtube censorship: https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-applauds-google-and-youtube-expanding-initiative-fight-online-hate https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-applauds-goo... Google search results censorship: https://www.adl.org/resources/news/can-google-search-be-used-counter-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/resources/news/can-google-search-be-used... X may be the one exception, though I note that the "advertiser boycott" was ended when Musk made trips to Israel, was photographed next Netanyahu's atrocity propaganda prop pieces, next to Ben Shapiro, etc.
lupire 2y ago
That's not right. Publishing is speech (Bernstein vs United States). Unpublishing the app would avoid the effects of the Act.
- whiddershins 2y ago
  think about it this way: could any law ever stop any publisher from doing anything and still respect the 1st amendemnt?
  - lmm 2y ago
    When the law is directed at a publisher, the 1st amendment is likely at issue. Especially if that law is singling out one publisher and not applying to any other entity, as this one is.
oooyay 2y ago
I really like reading these because they come with annotations: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALD... Also, more directly for those in the back, the actual first amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first amendment doesn't guarantee the speaker a venue for their speech. You're still free to say whatever you want to say, so long as it doesn't cross any other laws, in or on whatever other private venues or town squares you so choose. To turn your question around, rather than spending time defending TikTok I wish people would spend time thinking about the need for actual privacy laws. The kind of laws that outline data governance and the extents to which an individual can expect their individual privacy to be respected. Maybe then we can play less whack a mole with invasive and potentially harmful social software.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
It's amazing to me how many people are derailed by the free speech argument. This is about who controls the network, not the content on the network. There is a law that only U.S. citizens can own TV stations. That's why Murdoch became a US citizen (allowing him to buy Fox). This is in a similar vein.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  If you followed the politics of the TikTok ban, it was absolutely about the content of the network. US Congresspeople and Senators were angry that TikTok would not censor or de-emphasize pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli content, whereas Facebook much more actively de-boosted that kind of content. All previous attempts to ban TikTok failed to gain traction, until the Gaza war began, and that issue convinced many politicians in the US to back a ban.
  - groggo 2y ago
    I know this was a common talking point but I don't really agree it is a valid reason. It's probably just demographic and algorithmic differences that pro-Palestine content is more common on TikTok. What would be interesting though - on all platforms, what's the organic percentage of the different view points, and whats the percentage that ends up being shown to people. I think that's what people are worried about being quietly manipulated. So even a small amount of people with some extreme view point would get promoted because China wants it, but since it's real content, it's not really obvious that it's being pushed. I'm totally pro-TikTok btw I just don't really buy the idea that it was about this specific content.
- hwillis 2y ago
  > There is a law that only U.S. citizens can own TV stations. The communications act did not ban already-existing networks, and it did not ban specific providers. The tiktok ban is targeted specifically against one social media that the government does not like[1], with a thin veneer of "security concern" that people might specifically choose to share their contact list and that one of those contacts may be in a sensitive position. [1] I don't even really think it's about the government not liking it! They thought they could get cheap support by drumming up anti-chinese sentiment and they ran with it. It's the most pathetic kind of politicking.

curiousllama 2y ago

That's a great point. Hadn't thought about that angle

yobid20 2y ago

Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply. The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.

concinds 2y ago
The EFF disagrees. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supreme-courts-decision-uphold-tiktok-ban https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre...
- airstrike 2y ago
  The Supreme Court doesn't.
  - garbagewoman 2y ago
    The supreme court says a lot of things.
    - airstrike 2y ago
      So does the EFF, but they have no say in legal matters, so their opinion here is irrelevant, whereas the Supreme Court's opinion is final.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        Sure but even the supreme court disagrees with the supreme court. Treating their rulings as the best or canonical interpretation of a case doesn't make much sense. It's not like any interpretation is valid but there are plenty of valid ones.
        airstrike 2y ago
        By definition, the Supreme Court's decision _is_ the canonical interpretation. Whether you disagree with the decision has no bearing on the matter. And of course it makes sense, because the legal system was created by the very laws it upholds. If you think it should be different, then you'll have to convince a lot of people to change a lot of laws and probably parts of the US constitution
        tivert 2y ago
        > Treating their rulings as the best or canonical interpretation of a case doesn't make much sense. It does, because the Supreme Court's ruling is the legally binding interpretation. The EFF are just some people with an non-legally binding opinions.
        airstrike 2y ago
        It boggles the mind that this comment is being downvoted for literally stating facts. People really have their fingers in their ears with this topic.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      And what they say matters a whole lot more than what the eff says.
  - cute_boi 2y ago
    Just because Supreme court said it doesn't mean they aren't heavily biased.
    - monocularvision 2y ago
      What exactly do you mean here by using the term “biased”? In what way is the Supreme Court “biased”?
    - Fidelix 2y ago
      Yeah, and the EFF is in no way biased. at all.
garbagewoman 2y ago
This is affecting the free speech rights of US citizens directly. You might wish it was as simple as you try to portray it, but it clearly isn’t
- soerxpso 2y ago
  This is not affecting US citizens' legal free speech rights. You have the right to say what you want; you don't have the right to say it on a specific platform. You had free speech without TikTok before it existed, and you'll have the same amount of free speech if it does not exist again.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    This is exactly the simplistic framing the person you replied to is talking about. So let's take an absurd extreme. The government designates a 1x1 mile "free speech zone" in the middle of Wyoming and says you're not allowed to speak anywhere else. You have the same amount of free speech as you did before, right? Another extreme, let's say the government declared that you may speak freely but only by filling out a web form routed to Dave. Great guy. I mean they haven't technically taken away your right to speak? And someone will hear what you say. Both of these would he flagrant violations of 1A as I'm sure you'd agree. But what this means is that implicit to 1A the government has limits on how many places it can deny you speech and limits on how much they can deny you an audience. And you can't hide behind the "well it's just divestiture not a ban" because the courts aren't blind to POSIWID. So the more nuanced question is does banning TikTok meaningfully affect the ability of Americans to speak. And I think because of how large they are you could answer yes to this question. Americans know exactly what they're signing up for with their TT accounts and want to post there. TikTok but owned by an American would be legal so the platform itself isn't the issue. And saying TT can't operate in the US and actively preventing Americans from accessing it are two very different actions.
    - monocularvision 2y ago
      Actually, both of those examples might be legal (assuming the form is applying for a permit for some specific event/location). Time, place, and manner restrictions have long been upheld by the courts. What isn’t legal, or at least what requires strict scrutiny, are content restrictions.
jmholla 2y ago
> Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply. The Constitution does not place limits on which people are protected by it (you don't have to be a citizen for it to apply as the founders were looking to limit the powers of their government not their citizens). And with the expansion of those protections to corporations through Citizens United, I'd be surprised if a court found that `company + foreign != person + foreign` when they've decided `company == person`. (Well not surprised by this Court.) > The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference. The rest of your comment still stands right in my eyes. National Security has often been used as a means to bypass many things enshrined by the Constitution.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  The court has never determined that corporations are people, that’s a completely unfounded meme. What they did find was that (real, human) people have certain rights that they are able to exercise by organizing into corporations.
  - iterance 2y ago
    Eh? Unless otherwise specified, corporations satisfy the definition of a person across all federal laws per 1 USC §1, which reads: "the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals" That 1 USC §1 is not a typo: this copy appears in the first section of the first title of US code, on disambiguating common terms used in law.
  - hwillis 2y ago
    Totally beside the point. Verbatim from Citizens United: > The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ SCOTUS held that coorporations (and more broadly "associations of people") have the same rights to free speech that any individual does.
beej71 2y ago
> The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). This is red alert talk. We need to make damned sure we know exactly what we're asking for here and that we're not giving up more than we mean to.
groggo 2y ago
I get this argument, and obviously it's not stopping people from uploading the same content other places. But isn't there (or shouldn't there be) something about not banning what people can consume? Like could the US ban aljazeera? Or banning foreign books?! And still TikTok is different, because it's about the potential for quietly manipulating or curating what is seen, even if that content is produced domestically... And even if people can use other apps, there's still a community and subcultures that are being dismantled.
russli1993 2y ago
Cool, so is all US companies in all other countries around the world then, no protections. All countries in the world, USA just showed it is perfectly fine to steal a foreign companies' asset. Let's do that to all USA companies, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Boeing, Qualcomn, Intel, all of them. U know how rich you will be if you just got a piece of them? U know you could end homelessness, poverty, balance trade, stabilize your currency, elevate tax revenues, get free education and health care for your citizens, provide great jobs if you just got a piece of USA companies? Now you can! All of them can be Indian, Germany, France, UK, Poland, Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian, Kenyan, Egyptian companies. Everyone gets a piece, everyone gets them equally, everyone will benefit and be happy!

nilsbunger 2y ago

This is a limitation on foreign control of TikTok, not a limitation on speech. TikTok can stay in the us market if it eliminates the foreign control

garbagewoman 2y ago
That’s very vague and theoretical
- compootr 2y ago
  is it? that's what TT's requirements look like
  - cma 2y ago
    Sounds very similar to the great firewall
russli1993 2y ago
There is limitation of foreign control of all foreign companies in all countries. USA companies can stay in the world markets if it sells itself to owners of that country. All USA companies, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Boeing, Qualcomn, Intel, all of them, can be Indian, Germany, France, UK, Poland, Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian, Kenyan, Egyptian companies.

nikanj 2y ago

The easier answer is ”This is really eating into Meta’s revenues”

imgabe 2y ago

Congress is explicitly empowered in the Constitution to regulate foreign trade. Free speech is not relevant.

gnkyfrg 2y ago
[dead]
garbagewoman 2y ago
Free speech is relevant if issues of free speech are involved, which they are here.
- imgabe 2y ago
  There are no issues of speech. Nobody’s speech is restricted in any way. China simply isn’t allowed to sell a social media app in the US. This is just an import control like if we decided not to import lemons from Brazil or anything else. What specific speech do you think is no longer allowed?
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    > Nobody’s speech is restricted in any way. Justice Sotomayor disagrees with you [1]: > Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a brief opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She stressed that she saw “no reason to assume without deciding that the Act implicates the First Amendment because our precedent leaves no doubt that it does.” The rest of the justices sidestepped the question by assuming the First Amendment was implicated for the sake of argument. [1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tiktok-ban/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tik...
    - imgabe 2y ago
      They upheld the ban even if there were a First Amendment interest. That doesn’t mean that there is one, it means that if there were one it wouldn’t matter. They didn’t examine if the first amendment applied or not because it wouldn’t matter.

rjp0008 2y ago

Interesting that the reference linked is in reference to must-carry regulation. The tiktok scenario is the opposite though? Must-not-carry that content! I suppose Uncle Sam's sword cuts both ways.

roncesvalles 2y ago

Sweet summer child, do you think TikTok would've been banned if it didn't come into focus as a hotbed for pro-Palestinian content? "The issue in the United States for support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old. And the numbers of young people who think that Hamas' massacre was justified is shockingly and terrifyingly odd. And so we really have a TikTok problem." "[TikTok] is like Al Jazeera on steroids." - Jonathan Gleenblat, ADL. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelCrimes/comments/1i3vwll/we_have_a_tiktok_problem/?rdt=45499 https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelCrimes/comments/1i3vwll/we_ha... Something very appalling has just taken place in the USA. Old people have muzzled the free speech of young people. Americans spend more hours on TikTok than on television (but it mostly skews to young people), and now it's been taken away.

soerxpso 2y ago
If TikTok were sold to an American company, as the new law demands, why would that change anything about the amount of pro-Palestinian content? Just because the ADL said they don't like TikTok does not mean that's the motivation for the bill. You're still allowed to criticize Israel as much as you were a decade ago (which is to say, less than you're allowed to criticize the US, for some reason ;) but still).
- roncesvalles 2y ago
  Because a sale is and has always been impossible since it would be an unacceptable embarrassment for China in the current climate. The divestiture is just a way to make the ban pass muster.
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    Thats a good reason why it's banned. China cannot sell. TikTok is under the strong control of their government, and so won't sell despite loosing an stupefying amount of revenue by doing so.
- LAC-Tech 2y ago
  Which big US social media company operates without some form of involvement with the ADL? This isn't a conspiracy, the ADL openly admits and is proud of their involvement in censorship. Here they are bragging about their role in youtube censorship: https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-applauds-google-and-youtube-expanding-initiative-fight-online-hate https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-applauds-goo... Google search results censorship: https://www.adl.org/resources/news/can-google-search-be-used-counter-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/resources/news/can-google-search-be-used... X may be the one exception, though I note that the "advertiser boycott" was ended when Musk made trips to Israel, was photographed next Netanyahu's atrocity propaganda prop pieces, next to Ben Shapiro, etc.

lupire 2y ago

That's not right. Publishing is speech (Bernstein vs United States). Unpublishing the app would avoid the effects of the Act.

whiddershins 2y ago
think about it this way: could any law ever stop any publisher from doing anything and still respect the 1st amendemnt?
- lmm 2y ago
  When the law is directed at a publisher, the 1st amendment is likely at issue. Especially if that law is singling out one publisher and not applying to any other entity, as this one is.

oooyay 2y ago

I really like reading these because they come with annotations: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALD... Also, more directly for those in the back, the actual first amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first amendment doesn't guarantee the speaker a venue for their speech. You're still free to say whatever you want to say, so long as it doesn't cross any other laws, in or on whatever other private venues or town squares you so choose. To turn your question around, rather than spending time defending TikTok I wish people would spend time thinking about the need for actual privacy laws. The kind of laws that outline data governance and the extents to which an individual can expect their individual privacy to be respected. Maybe then we can play less whack a mole with invasive and potentially harmful social software.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

It's amazing to me how many people are derailed by the free speech argument. This is about who controls the network, not the content on the network. There is a law that only U.S. citizens can own TV stations. That's why Murdoch became a US citizen (allowing him to buy Fox). This is in a similar vein.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
If you followed the politics of the TikTok ban, it was absolutely about the content of the network. US Congresspeople and Senators were angry that TikTok would not censor or de-emphasize pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli content, whereas Facebook much more actively de-boosted that kind of content. All previous attempts to ban TikTok failed to gain traction, until the Gaza war began, and that issue convinced many politicians in the US to back a ban.
- groggo 2y ago
  I know this was a common talking point but I don't really agree it is a valid reason. It's probably just demographic and algorithmic differences that pro-Palestine content is more common on TikTok. What would be interesting though - on all platforms, what's the organic percentage of the different view points, and whats the percentage that ends up being shown to people. I think that's what people are worried about being quietly manipulated. So even a small amount of people with some extreme view point would get promoted because China wants it, but since it's real content, it's not really obvious that it's being pushed. I'm totally pro-TikTok btw I just don't really buy the idea that it was about this specific content.
hwillis 2y ago
> There is a law that only U.S. citizens can own TV stations. The communications act did not ban already-existing networks, and it did not ban specific providers. The tiktok ban is targeted specifically against one social media that the government does not like[1], with a thin veneer of "security concern" that people might specifically choose to share their contact list and that one of those contacts may be in a sensitive position. [1] I don't even really think it's about the government not liking it! They thought they could get cheap support by drumming up anti-chinese sentiment and they ran with it. It's the most pathetic kind of politicking.