4 ms·

New norm just dropped: President says one thing, law says another, companies must choose their allegiance to which reality they adhere to but end up in a lose l

New norm just dropped: President says one thing, law says another, companies must choose their allegiance to which reality they adhere to but end up in a lose lose situation. Pour one out for Apple's lawyers working late tonight.

tantalor 2y ago
From NPR: The law does allow one exception: TikTok can continue to operate if Trump certifies to Congress that "significant progress" has been made toward TikTok breaking away from ByteDance's ownership. The law requires that Trump show Congress there are legally binding agreements in motion over ownership changes at TikTok.
- hoten 2y ago
  Isn't that clearly not the case here? How has TikTok shown any movement towards selling.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  What is their hangup with selling 50%, really? They’ll be rich!
  - foogazi 2y ago
    They don’t want to give it up - CCP doesn’t need the money
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Or they don't want US social media companies to buy TikTok US and use their IP to outcompete them across the world? On that note, many US-based TikTok users have reported that the app and the algorithm are substantially worse since the ban was lifted, with speculation that TikTok might sell a watered down version of the TikTok experience to an American buyer.
- jsiegz 2y ago
  That only applies if it happened before January 19th. That's why his 75 day EO just says they won't go after companies who violate the law, rather than say he's using the 90 day extension provided in the law (because it's too late to use that). Some of the media isn't picking up on this nuance, but it's clear that's why it's a 75 day lack of enforcement, not a 90 day extension.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Which obviously doesn’t prevent them from accruing massive fines for the next administration to enforce.
    - jsiegz 2y ago
      Yes, and if you read the EO, Section 3(c) states: "This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person." In practical terms, this means: 1. Private parties (like TikTok or its users) cannot sue to enforce this EO 2. If the government doesn't follow the EO, you can't take them to court over it 3. Companies can't use this EO as a legal defense if they're sued For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection This is important because while the EO tells app stores and other companies they won't be prosecuted, this disclaimer means they can't legally rely on that promise. If the EO is later found invalid or a new administration changes course, they could still face liability for actions taken during this period. This creates a risky situation for companies trying to decide whether to comply with the law or follow the EO's guidance. A $5,000 fine per user of a 170M user platform means financial ruin for even Google and Apple if enforced. Larry Ellison (Oracle) might be willing to take that risk, and as a controlling founder he can do so without risk of being fired, but I don't think Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai are going to stick out their neck on this one.
      - ivewonyoung 2y ago
        > For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection Sued by who? Private parties can't sue other private parties over lack of enforcement, for example you cannot sue your neighbor for violating the federal ban on using pot. Only the govt can prosecute or sue over certain laws. And judges would be certainly sympathetic because of this EO.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  That is 1 of 3 certifications that had to happen in the past.
forgotoldacc 2y ago
How's it lose-lose? Companies can now get away with anything so long as they pay the president a bribe and publicly say "thank you for saving the world." The only way to lose is to not transparently do some easy butt-kissing. And most Americans love watching the corruption. It makes you a good team player.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  I guess as long as the President is competent at directing the executive branch to not enforce a law then you're right, you win by making yourself a sycophant. But if you don't trust the President to write an EO that actually prevents you from being fined millions of dollars a day then you're just stuck with ambiguity of what you're allowed to do. Bad for business.
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    right. it's a forum for start ups and small entrepreneurs, but everyone comment like they are already bigger than meta and as above the law as musk.
- hobs 2y ago
  This is what companies working with fascist governments have thought, and historically that works well up until things change overnight and they come for you.
  - forgotoldacc 2y ago
    The difference between then and now is that the rich are richer than ever before and they can just buy an island thousands of miles away and continue to live a first world lifestyle, completely unaffected. Lower level workers aren't the ones paying bribes and nobody will care what happens to them.
    - hobs 2y ago
      Fair, but then they nationalize all your assets that you have in the country.
threeseed 2y ago
Tim Cook already donated $1m to Trump's inauguration. And Apple has promised to invest heavily in US manufacturing. In fact almost all of the Tech CEOs have dutifully kissed the ring and avoided his wrath.
- davidw 2y ago
  For now. But once you show you're willing, there's often a next ask and then one after that.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I keep seeing this characterization of inauguration donations as "kissing the ring", and I don't understand it. This is a routine practice for presidential inaugurations. Don't get me wrong, I agree it's bad, but the phrase implies a level of fealty that I really don't think is present. Nobody argued that Pfizer or Boeing or J.Lo were kissing Biden's ring in 2020.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bufferoverflow 2y ago
You're really misrepresenting what's happening. It's not "president says". President issues an executive order. Which is a very specific constitutional legal procedure with its own rules. It cannot contradict the Constitution. The Supreme Court can overturn it.
- ggm 2y ago
  This is important, and needs to be understood contextually. They CAN overturn but they don't randomly overturn things: Somebody has to bring action and they have to accept a need to do something, and set it's priority against other work. They can put a stay on things or reverse, but it doesn't happen on a whim. And you need standing to bring things to their attention. Also the volume of executive orders over time is down net, the last 150 years. With a spike during WW2. Trump is exceeding local norms. But not historical highs. I happen to think the orders are shit. That's not the point.
keepamovin 2y ago
[flagged]

tantalor 2y ago

From NPR: The law does allow one exception: TikTok can continue to operate if Trump certifies to Congress that "significant progress" has been made toward TikTok breaking away from ByteDance's ownership. The law requires that Trump show Congress there are legally binding agreements in motion over ownership changes at TikTok.

hoten 2y ago
Isn't that clearly not the case here? How has TikTok shown any movement towards selling.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
What is their hangup with selling 50%, really? They’ll be rich!
- foogazi 2y ago
  They don’t want to give it up - CCP doesn’t need the money
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Or they don't want US social media companies to buy TikTok US and use their IP to outcompete them across the world? On that note, many US-based TikTok users have reported that the app and the algorithm are substantially worse since the ban was lifted, with speculation that TikTok might sell a watered down version of the TikTok experience to an American buyer.
jsiegz 2y ago
That only applies if it happened before January 19th. That's why his 75 day EO just says they won't go after companies who violate the law, rather than say he's using the 90 day extension provided in the law (because it's too late to use that). Some of the media isn't picking up on this nuance, but it's clear that's why it's a 75 day lack of enforcement, not a 90 day extension.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Which obviously doesn’t prevent them from accruing massive fines for the next administration to enforce.
  - jsiegz 2y ago
    Yes, and if you read the EO, Section 3(c) states: "This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person." In practical terms, this means: 1. Private parties (like TikTok or its users) cannot sue to enforce this EO 2. If the government doesn't follow the EO, you can't take them to court over it 3. Companies can't use this EO as a legal defense if they're sued For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection This is important because while the EO tells app stores and other companies they won't be prosecuted, this disclaimer means they can't legally rely on that promise. If the EO is later found invalid or a new administration changes course, they could still face liability for actions taken during this period. This creates a risky situation for companies trying to decide whether to comply with the law or follow the EO's guidance. A $5,000 fine per user of a 170M user platform means financial ruin for even Google and Apple if enforced. Larry Ellison (Oracle) might be willing to take that risk, and as a controlling founder he can do so without risk of being fired, but I don't think Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai are going to stick out their neck on this one.
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      > For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection Sued by who? Private parties can't sue other private parties over lack of enforcement, for example you cannot sue your neighbor for violating the federal ban on using pot. Only the govt can prosecute or sue over certain laws. And judges would be certainly sympathetic because of this EO.
nickthegreek 2y ago
That is 1 of 3 certifications that had to happen in the past.

forgotoldacc 2y ago

How's it lose-lose? Companies can now get away with anything so long as they pay the president a bribe and publicly say "thank you for saving the world." The only way to lose is to not transparently do some easy butt-kissing. And most Americans love watching the corruption. It makes you a good team player.

jazzyjackson 2y ago
I guess as long as the President is competent at directing the executive branch to not enforce a law then you're right, you win by making yourself a sycophant. But if you don't trust the President to write an EO that actually prevents you from being fined millions of dollars a day then you're just stuck with ambiguity of what you're allowed to do. Bad for business.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  right. it's a forum for start ups and small entrepreneurs, but everyone comment like they are already bigger than meta and as above the law as musk.
hobs 2y ago
This is what companies working with fascist governments have thought, and historically that works well up until things change overnight and they come for you.
- forgotoldacc 2y ago
  The difference between then and now is that the rich are richer than ever before and they can just buy an island thousands of miles away and continue to live a first world lifestyle, completely unaffected. Lower level workers aren't the ones paying bribes and nobody will care what happens to them.
  - hobs 2y ago
    Fair, but then they nationalize all your assets that you have in the country.

threeseed 2y ago

Tim Cook already donated $1m to Trump's inauguration. And Apple has promised to invest heavily in US manufacturing. In fact almost all of the Tech CEOs have dutifully kissed the ring and avoided his wrath.

davidw 2y ago
For now. But once you show you're willing, there's often a next ask and then one after that.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I keep seeing this characterization of inauguration donations as "kissing the ring", and I don't understand it. This is a routine practice for presidential inaugurations. Don't get me wrong, I agree it's bad, but the phrase implies a level of fealty that I really don't think is present. Nobody argued that Pfizer or Boeing or J.Lo were kissing Biden's ring in 2020.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bufferoverflow 2y ago

You're really misrepresenting what's happening. It's not "president says". President issues an executive order. Which is a very specific constitutional legal procedure with its own rules. It cannot contradict the Constitution. The Supreme Court can overturn it.

ggm 2y ago
This is important, and needs to be understood contextually. They CAN overturn but they don't randomly overturn things: Somebody has to bring action and they have to accept a need to do something, and set it's priority against other work. They can put a stay on things or reverse, but it doesn't happen on a whim. And you need standing to bring things to their attention. Also the volume of executive orders over time is down net, the last 150 years. With a spike during WW2. Trump is exceeding local norms. But not historical highs. I happen to think the orders are shit. That's not the point.

keepamovin 2y ago

[flagged]