5 ms·

John Gruber from Daring Fireball has an interesting comment: >I’m surprised but not shocked by this. But I’d sure like to see what exactly that letter says. Th

by graeme 2y ago

John Gruber from Daring Fireball has an interesting comment: >I’m surprised but not shocked by this. But I’d sure like to see what exactly that letter says. The PAFACA Act — the law that bans TikTok in the US now that the deadline has passed for ByteDance to sell it to a US company — hasn’t changed or been rescinded, and the current delay in enforcement has no basis in law. From this post: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/02/13/apple-google-tiktok-app-stores https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/02/13/apple-google-ti... No basis in law hyperlinks to this post: https://daringfireball.net/2025/01/npr_trump_tiktok https://daringfireball.net/2025/01/npr_trump_tiktok

fastball 2y ago
I guess the basis in law is "I fired the entire DOJ so there is nobody to enforce it, we'll just have to wait until those positions are filled again".
- imbnwa 2y ago
  Yeah, they do seem to be quite busy illegally destroying New Deal Federalism and any judge loyal to the constitution is gonna be occupied well into the future with that
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The New Deal was unconstitutional to begin with. We've been operating outside the constitution for a very long time.
brookst 2y ago
The great thing is, if a president can unilaterally decide a law doesn’t matter, they can also decide that an imaginary law applies.
- TehCorwiz 2y ago
  It requires the same violation of personal privacy by the state to prevent someone from having an abortion as it does to compel one.
- Sontho 2y ago
  Most people don't realize this.
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    Most people realize this. Most people don't: * think it will impact them. * have any idea what to do about it when the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bvrmn 2y ago
      > the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback "President is the main person end has exceptional power". That's the mental model for most people. There is no any internal conflict with law violation and any space for reflection what's wrong with it.
    - gizzlon 2y ago
      > have any idea what to do about it They could start with: 1) Peaceful protest, and 2) Boycotting anything related to Musk, Trump and anyone that bends a knee. (When that's literally impossible, as in "I have to buy food somewhere", pick the least bad) Simple, but inconvenient. Better to make excuses and hope someone else fixes the problem at no cost to me.
      - brookst 2y ago
        There's a lot of middle ground between the righteous protesters putting their lives on the line and the lazy, complacent bourgeoise with their contemptible heads in the sand. I don't have the energy or time to join protests. I donate substantially enough that it's noticeable in my finances to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Fair Fight, and a handful of others. Tell me I'm not doing enough, that's fair. Tell me I'm doing nothing, and that's a little insulting.
boc 2y ago
I hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws that protect you and your companies. You WILL be a target eventually and nobody is going to protect you. This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences. It's insane that Congress isn't stepping-up here.
- macinjosh 2y ago
  Obama, Trump and Biden have ignored federal cannabis laws for years. Laws and even the Constitution are ignored routinely Snowden showed us that.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    While this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok". this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
    - macinjosh 2y ago
      Biden refused to enforce the law as well. Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
anon373839 2y ago
I’m a little surprised by this action because the White House can’t protect platforms from state charges. There are plenty of state laws on the books that make violation of federal law a state law violation as well. I suppose the calculation is that no state AGs will want to wade in?
- taurknaut 2y ago
  I think there are many people fine with simply removing federal enforcement over states. One possible outcome of this is the federal government us just a joke and laws are relative to where you live. I mean. This weird-ass country is already like that, despite the states themselves making zero sense. It'll just get worse.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  He can’t fire state AGs, but can at the federal level. He just fired a dozen of them at the federal level. State AGs may not want to deal with trump appointed feds. That’s why people are just straight resigning. So in a way he’s firing them. No feedback loop here guys, seriously.
cyberax 2y ago
As far as I remember, the law allowed the president to postpone the law once for up to 90 days. So this particular act is not illegal.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  The president can extend the deadline by up to 90 if certain conditions are met. You can argue if those conditions were met, but to argue that Trump had no legal authority to do with without even mentioning the 90 extension provided for by the law is pretty clearly just more useless partisan bullshit.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pr337h4m 2y ago
Any step towards a Great Firewall of America is infinitely worse than supposedly improper non-enforcement of an internet censorship law.
- redserk 2y ago
  I'd argue this is worse than a "Great Firewall of America". The law is poorly thought out and poorly written, but it's something that any company's legal team can point to and understand why they may fall out of compliance. An arbitrarily enforced law throws that out the window. You're incentivized to cozy up to each administration and hope they don't turn on you, be it Republicans or Democrats.

by graeme 2y ago

fastball 2y ago

I guess the basis in law is "I fired the entire DOJ so there is nobody to enforce it, we'll just have to wait until those positions are filled again".

imbnwa 2y ago
Yeah, they do seem to be quite busy illegally destroying New Deal Federalism and any judge loyal to the constitution is gonna be occupied well into the future with that
- philwelch 2y ago
  The New Deal was unconstitutional to begin with. We've been operating outside the constitution for a very long time.

brookst 2y ago

The great thing is, if a president can unilaterally decide a law doesn’t matter, they can also decide that an imaginary law applies.

TehCorwiz 2y ago
It requires the same violation of personal privacy by the state to prevent someone from having an abortion as it does to compel one.
Sontho 2y ago
Most people don't realize this.
- t-writescode 2y ago
  Most people realize this. Most people don't: * think it will impact them. * have any idea what to do about it when the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bvrmn 2y ago
    > the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback "President is the main person end has exceptional power". That's the mental model for most people. There is no any internal conflict with law violation and any space for reflection what's wrong with it.
  - gizzlon 2y ago
    > have any idea what to do about it They could start with: 1) Peaceful protest, and 2) Boycotting anything related to Musk, Trump and anyone that bends a knee. (When that's literally impossible, as in "I have to buy food somewhere", pick the least bad) Simple, but inconvenient. Better to make excuses and hope someone else fixes the problem at no cost to me.
    - brookst 2y ago
      There's a lot of middle ground between the righteous protesters putting their lives on the line and the lazy, complacent bourgeoise with their contemptible heads in the sand. I don't have the energy or time to join protests. I donate substantially enough that it's noticeable in my finances to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Fair Fight, and a handful of others. Tell me I'm not doing enough, that's fair. Tell me I'm doing nothing, and that's a little insulting.

boc 2y ago

I hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws that protect you and your companies. You WILL be a target eventually and nobody is going to protect you. This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences. It's insane that Congress isn't stepping-up here.

macinjosh 2y ago
Obama, Trump and Biden have ignored federal cannabis laws for years. Laws and even the Constitution are ignored routinely Snowden showed us that.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  While this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok". this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
  - macinjosh 2y ago
    Biden refused to enforce the law as well. Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

anon373839 2y ago

I’m a little surprised by this action because the White House can’t protect platforms from state charges. There are plenty of state laws on the books that make violation of federal law a state law violation as well. I suppose the calculation is that no state AGs will want to wade in?

taurknaut 2y ago
I think there are many people fine with simply removing federal enforcement over states. One possible outcome of this is the federal government us just a joke and laws are relative to where you live. I mean. This weird-ass country is already like that, despite the states themselves making zero sense. It'll just get worse.
bloomingkales 2y ago
He can’t fire state AGs, but can at the federal level. He just fired a dozen of them at the federal level. State AGs may not want to deal with trump appointed feds. That’s why people are just straight resigning. So in a way he’s firing them. No feedback loop here guys, seriously.

cyberax 2y ago

As far as I remember, the law allowed the president to postpone the law once for up to 90 days. So this particular act is not illegal.

shkkmo 2y ago
The president can extend the deadline by up to 90 if certain conditions are met. You can argue if those conditions were met, but to argue that Trump had no legal authority to do with without even mentioning the 90 extension provided for by the law is pretty clearly just more useless partisan bullshit.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pr337h4m 2y ago

Any step towards a Great Firewall of America is infinitely worse than supposedly improper non-enforcement of an internet censorship law.

redserk 2y ago
I'd argue this is worse than a "Great Firewall of America". The law is poorly thought out and poorly written, but it's something that any company's legal team can point to and understand why they may fall out of compliance. An arbitrarily enforced law throws that out the window. You're incentivized to cozy up to each administration and hope they don't turn on you, be it Republicans or Democrats.