3 ms·

There was no deadline, the app stores didn’t need to remove it. The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump administration to review, they had

There was no deadline, the app stores didn’t need to remove it. The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump administration to review, they had no reason to shut it down. It’s purely to force Trumps hand a bit.

yieldcrv 2y ago
Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not create liability, unless given an explicit assurance. I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They still had liability. Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing court cases all the way till the last minute even though they’ll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable to take a risk averse approach for a company.
arandomusername 2y ago
> As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw- ful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v._Garland.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v... Please do some research next time before spreading lies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  That is simply a topical remark within the judgement denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would have been required to be taken immediately offline, as the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet moved on the matter. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520/text/eh https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520...
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    It clearly states it will be unlawful for companies (e.g oracle for cloud, google for app distro) to provide services to Tiktok
- TypingOutBugs 2y ago
  From the White House Press Secretary: “It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them.” Please do some research next time before accusing people of spreading lies.
gpm 2y ago
The Biden administration said it wasn't going to initiate enforcement proceedings in the last 24 hours of their administration. It did not, nor did it have the authority to, waive the apps stores requirement under the law to do that. To remove the potential for future enforcement actions (up to 5 years in the future) punishing them for failing to comply with the law. Neither will Trump even once he is president unless and until amongst other things ByteDance signs legally binding documents that they will divest from TikTok within 90 days.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not create liability, unless given an explicit assurance. I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They still had liability. Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing court cases all the way till the last minute even though they’ll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable to take a risk averse approach for a company.

arandomusername 2y ago

> As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw- ful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v._Garland.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v... Please do some research next time before spreading lies.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TeaBrain 2y ago
That is simply a topical remark within the judgement denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would have been required to be taken immediately offline, as the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet moved on the matter. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520/text/eh https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520...
- arandomusername 2y ago
  It clearly states it will be unlawful for companies (e.g oracle for cloud, google for app distro) to provide services to Tiktok
TypingOutBugs 2y ago
From the White House Press Secretary: “It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them.” Please do some research next time before accusing people of spreading lies.

gpm 2y ago

The Biden administration said it wasn't going to initiate enforcement proceedings in the last 24 hours of their administration. It did not, nor did it have the authority to, waive the apps stores requirement under the law to do that. To remove the potential for future enforcement actions (up to 5 years in the future) punishing them for failing to comply with the law. Neither will Trump even once he is president unless and until amongst other things ByteDance signs legally binding documents that they will divest from TikTok within 90 days.