4 ms·

This is bizarre.. Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ? Maybe the US should just create some privacy prote

This is bizarre.. Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ? Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?

jbombadil 2y ago
My understanding is that the law doesn’t ban TikTok. The law gives the president the power to ban TikTok. So the president can elect not to use said power.
- yobid20 2y ago
  The law quite clearly states bytedance aka tiktok so yea tiktok is 100% banned and the penalty is massive fines that would essentially bankrupt them.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    The law quite clearly says it is the president's call. It is a new presidential power. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text#H9CE7920E18BA4AE4AB50852D1350AC0F https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
    - mwigdahl 2y ago
      It is the President’s call for any _additional_ applications. It is not his call for TikTok or any other ByteDance applications.
  - benmmurphy 2y ago
    if the law explicitly says bytedance and there is no way for bytedance to avoid it then its a bill of attainder and unconstitutional. presumably, they have worded the law in a way that avoids this for example by letting the president remove bytedance for being in violation if he considers them no longer in violation.
helsinkiandrew 2y ago
> Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ? No, but they can direct the federal government to deprioritize enforcement.
yobid20 2y ago
No, he can't. Congress would have to revoke it. But it has bipartison support. So its just more of the same charade BS that he rants on about. Its all nonsense from him. It will be worse this time around bc he is not all there (even moreso than 2016). The next 4 yrs are going to be quite comical. He can't even control his bowels and he has to wear diapers to stop leaking.
- TOMDM 2y ago
  I'm no fan of trump, but the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform. > The Act exempts a foreign adversary controlled applica- tion from the prohibitions if the application undergoes a “qualified divestiture.” §2(c)(1). A “qualified divestiture” is one that the President determines will result in the appli- cation “no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” §2(g)(6)(A). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
  - bilekas 2y ago
    > the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform. This feels like a fast track path to an oligarch system ? Pay enough and get your exception..
    - hlynurd 2y ago
      What kinda system is it currently?
      - TOMDM 2y ago
        A Democratic Republic
        KennyBlanken 2y ago
        Not since a year or two after Citizens United. Also, in case you didn't notice, the world's richest man just about bought the presidential election by spending over a quarter billion dollars.
TOMDM 2y ago
It was explicitly written in this law specifically that the president can unilaterally decide that an affected platform has done enough to no longer qualify for the ban.
- cluckindan 2y ago
  America is looking more and more like a fascist dictatorship.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Managed democracy.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Because a separate legislative power decided to give the President certain powers? That’s the opposite of fascist.
    - Vampiero 2y ago
      It's only fascism when the guy has a mustache
    - spacechild1 2y ago
      That's exactly how Hitler came to power. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
      - refurb 2y ago
        No it's not. The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.
        cluckindan 2y ago
        Only superficially: the dictator cannot be subjected to any judicial control, but the dictator’s party has a two-thirds majority on the top rung of the judicial system.
7bit 2y ago
> Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ? But... But that would apply to Meta and Twitter as well Ö
eik21 2y ago
I mean if a president is allowed to pardon a criminal then I guess this is nothing compared to it

This is bizarre.. Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ? Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?

jbombadil 2y ago

My understanding is that the law doesn’t ban TikTok. The law gives the president the power to ban TikTok. So the president can elect not to use said power.

yobid20 2y ago
The law quite clearly states bytedance aka tiktok so yea tiktok is 100% banned and the penalty is massive fines that would essentially bankrupt them.
- sethammons 2y ago
  The law quite clearly says it is the president's call. It is a new presidential power. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text#H9CE7920E18BA4AE4AB50852D1350AC0F https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
  - mwigdahl 2y ago
    It is the President’s call for any _additional_ applications. It is not his call for TikTok or any other ByteDance applications.
- benmmurphy 2y ago
  if the law explicitly says bytedance and there is no way for bytedance to avoid it then its a bill of attainder and unconstitutional. presumably, they have worded the law in a way that avoids this for example by letting the president remove bytedance for being in violation if he considers them no longer in violation.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

> Maybe I'm wrong but is a president even allowed just unilaterally decide to revoke a law ? No, but they can direct the federal government to deprioritize enforcement.

yobid20 2y ago

No, he can't. Congress would have to revoke it. But it has bipartison support. So its just more of the same charade BS that he rants on about. Its all nonsense from him. It will be worse this time around bc he is not all there (even moreso than 2016). The next 4 yrs are going to be quite comical. He can't even control his bowels and he has to wear diapers to stop leaking.

TOMDM 2y ago
I'm no fan of trump, but the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform. > The Act exempts a foreign adversary controlled applica- tion from the prohibitions if the application undergoes a “qualified divestiture.” §2(c)(1). A “qualified divestiture” is one that the President determines will result in the appli- cation “no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” §2(g)(6)(A). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
- bilekas 2y ago
  > the law explicitly states that the president can exempt a platform. This feels like a fast track path to an oligarch system ? Pay enough and get your exception..
  - hlynurd 2y ago
    What kinda system is it currently?
    - TOMDM 2y ago
      A Democratic Republic
      - KennyBlanken 2y ago
        Not since a year or two after Citizens United. Also, in case you didn't notice, the world's richest man just about bought the presidential election by spending over a quarter billion dollars.

TOMDM 2y ago

It was explicitly written in this law specifically that the president can unilaterally decide that an affected platform has done enough to no longer qualify for the ban.

cluckindan 2y ago
America is looking more and more like a fascist dictatorship.
- lukan 2y ago
  Managed democracy.
- refurb 2y ago
  Because a separate legislative power decided to give the President certain powers? That’s the opposite of fascist.
  - Vampiero 2y ago
    It's only fascism when the guy has a mustache
  - spacechild1 2y ago
    That's exactly how Hitler came to power. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    - refurb 2y ago
      No it's not. The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.
      - cluckindan 2y ago
        Only superficially: the dictator cannot be subjected to any judicial control, but the dictator’s party has a two-thirds majority on the top rung of the judicial system.

7bit 2y ago

> Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ? But... But that would apply to Meta and Twitter as well Ö

eik21 2y ago

I mean if a president is allowed to pardon a criminal then I guess this is nothing compared to it