4 ms·

There's a lot of debate in the media about whether or not the banning of bytedance/tiktok is an infringement of the 1st ammendment rights of users or if it repr

There's a lot of debate in the media about whether or not the banning of bytedance/tiktok is an infringement of the 1st ammendment rights of users or if it represents a threat to the security of the country. I just think that governments shouldn't be able to easily take down internet services like this. If it was just a normal web service with reasonably competent userbase, it could continue operating a hidden service over tor or some other mixnet. Instead, the government can effectively shut down the service by sending takedown orders to app stores and ISPs, which are naturally monopolistic and have little reason to stand up to regulators and act on behalf of their user's interests. People have locked themselves into walled gardens and this is the end product. The town square has been privatized and controlled. Own your computers, people! Or someone else will.

notacoward 2y ago
The US constitution prohibits bills of attainder, i.e. targeted toward specific individuals. The US has also decided that corporations are people, so the concept should apply to them as well. Therefore, by their own reasoning this is unconstitutional. I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I hate hypocrisy (which this is) and rarely hesitate to call it out. On the other hand I believe "corporate personhood" is absolute bollocks. I resolve this in my own mind by saying that the ban on bills of attainder can be extended to corporations and other entities without declaring them persons. Laws should be statements of principle, timeless and equally applicable to all, not one-off actions targeted toward specific entities.