5 ms·
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
by 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 agoAmerica is looking more and more like a fascist dictatorship.
- lukan 2y agoManaged democracy.
- refurb 2y agoBecause a separate legislative power decided to give the President certain powers? That’s the opposite of fascist.
- Vampiero 2y agoIt's only fascism when the guy has a mustache
- spacechild1 2y agoThat'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 agoNo it's not. The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.
- cluckindan 2y agoOnly 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.
- spacechild1 2y agoWhen you give the president additional power, the legislative loses some of its own power. The Enabling Act is just the most extreme example.
- refurb 2y agoThe President doesn't have additional powers in the Tiktok example. The President has always been able to veto laws. Biden could have vetoed the bill if he wanted. And a Congress that passes a bill that says the President has a say in it's execution isn't odd either. The administrative body always has powers of execution. And Congress is free to pass a law to reverse the law and make Tiktok legal if they want.
- spacechild1 2y agoFair enough.
- alkonaut 2y agoThey are supposed to be separate. The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate". You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.
- refurb 2y ago> The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate". I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If money had such a large influences then why did a Presidential candidate who spent about half the other candidate win? And then you claim the President will control the money, but the President doesn't control campaign funds. They don't even control government spending, Congress does. > You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous. Ok, this makes more sense. But the issue you raise isn't unique to the US system. It's not even unique to politics. Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors". If you criticism is just human behavior, then I agree. But not much you can do to solve that.
- addandsubtract 2y agoAre you seriously asking why the guy who owns a social media platform and is heavily endorsed by another only needed to spend half of the others "campaign finance" budget? Not to mention all the other money and propaganda that's off the books.
- alkonaut 2y ago
- luxuryballs 2y agoit’s about to start looking significantly less fascist if Trump admin can pull off their various goals and shake off some of the entrenched regulatory capture
- cluckindan 2y agoViews centered on revolutionary nationalism. Using judicial means to remove opposition and replace holders of governmental positions with followers. Commanding paramilitary forces into an assault at the capital. Consolidation of power to close allies and financial supporters. Alienation of democratic powers. Foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation’s possessions. The parallels to Mussolini are not nonexistent.
- luxuryballs 2y agowould love to see some citations on these… you work for the weather channel severe weather department by chance?
- TacticalCoder 2y ago[dead]
- nthingtohide 2y agoAmerica is a DeepState autocratic core with a veneer of Democracy.
- itfossil 2y agoNo it wasn't. The law specifically states that the president can only enact an extension in the event that TikTok is credibly attempting to negotiate a sale. They are not doing that, hence an extension will not happen.
- TOMDM 2y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759336
- jonny_eh 2y agoI don't see it in the law. [0] If you mean section 2.1.a.2.a, it just allows the president to add additional apps to the ban list, not to lift TikTok, which is "hardcoded" into the law. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
- TOMDM 2y ago> 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