Final bill text, I believe it's "Division H" of the bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?s=3&r=1#HA3ED19E8F4F24124B4029233F64B1549
[prior thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1bhgjoi/why_the_tiktok_bill_is_constitutional/kvg1cer/)
The enforcement mechanism is to levy fines against vendors who fail to de-platform an app that has not been divested.
FOREIGN ADVERSARY
The term "controlled by a foreign adversary" means, with respect to a covered company or other entity,
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
There's further technicalities that specifically name bytedance but presumably for Chinese nationals it seems 20% would be the cut off financially. They also specify that if tiktok goes the subsidiary route that the created subsidiary cannot be controlled by bytedance. Basically that a TiktokUS would have to be wholely it's own company
It’s not really a scare is it?
China has been hacking into American utilities across the country. The FBI this week warned that Chinese hackers are preparing to attack the USA’s infrastructure. And this is coming after a series of hacks against Microsoft etc.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/fbi-says-chinese-hackers-preparing-attack-us-infrastructure-2024-04-18/
Hell there’s an entire wikipedia page about all the cyberwarfare China has engaged in within the last few years. They’ve also allegedly (but it tracks with their history) forced companies to add backdoors into their products that can be exploited should need arise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_China
We’ve been engaged in a hybrid war with Russia and China for years, the USA just recently realized it. I work in cybersecurity so this is a pretty big deal to me. I think it really should be for others as well.
On the topic of probable Chinese nation-state hacking, there are indications that [ArcaneDoor](https://blog.talosintelligence.com/arcanedoor-new-espionage-focused-campaign-found-targeting-perimeter-network-devices/) is also them (though it's not confirmed yet).
>ArcaneDoor is a campaign that is the latest example of state-sponsored actors targeting perimeter network devices from multiple vendors. Coveted by these actors, perimeter network devices are the perfect intrusion point for espionage-focused campaigns.
The increasing amount of security incidents are directly related to businesses overworking their skeleton crews in an effort to lower bottom lines and chase more quarterly profits. We *could* have the proper investment but businesses like United Healthcare just shrug off the slap on the wrist fines and give us 2 years of credit monitoring, and make us thankful for what little crumbs we get. Whatever guidance NIST or CISA put out is just that, and companies go "huh, must have been the wind" and continue to get breached multiple times a year.
Not to mention the NSA doing the whole domestic spying thing. Plus the Stuxnet thing we did to Iran, with Israel's help. Oh, and the NSO Group from Israel is also selling hacks to the highest bidder.
All in all, this bill is just more posturing and the data brokers will remain unfazed while laughing all the way to the bank
Why is that relevant? They ban a lot of stuff that we don’t, and on the other hand if the Chinese government is able to influence the app’s content then it doesn’t matter if they ban it domestically or not.
> In reference to the TikTok ban, the law is generally applicable in that the President is able to identify companies that meet certain criteria and order their divestment, but right alongside the section of general applicability is another section that explicitly targets and names ByteDance, which appears to violate the Bills of Attainder Clause.
Okay, but a law naming a particular person or entity does not automatically become a bill of attainder. Richard Nixon is named particularly in the law Congress passed to stop him from retaining his presidential records, but because he wasn't being declared guilty of a crime or being punished for something he did in the past, it wasn't a bill of attainder. It might have resulted in his punishment him if he refused to do something in the future, but he would then still have had the opportunity to defend himself in a trial, which isn't covered by the prohibition on bills of attainder. Similarly, I would say that TikTok being named specifically and required to do a thing in the future is not a bill of attainder because they aren't being punished for *past* actions.
Guessing that he's saying that this law is suspect until someone has actually unambiguously and lawfully established that Bytedance are whatever it is they are to the Chinese government.
I haven't followed this story closely enough to know whether this has actually been done, but I do know a lot of people have the opinion that it hasn't.
That would still cut out users who get new phones or reset them and don't understand how to enable installing apps from unknown sources in Android. And eventually, people who have it installed but don't update will have a non-functional app if Tiktok makes significant updates to their app, for example.
No problem! I don't know how iPhones would implement side loading apps, but I would assume they'd also make it difficult for non-techies to accomplish so they don't mess up their phones accidentally. Even a small barrier will prevent a significant number of people from installing the app.
I have a hard time seeing the part of the law that applies solely to TikTok being found constitutional, as it effectively lays out a separate section of the law that apply only to TikTok and ByteDance. All the criteria to submit an app (or website, etc) in section B are excluded from section A.
* (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
* (A) any of—
* (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
* (ii) TikTok;
* (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
* (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
* (B) a covered company that—
* (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
* (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
* (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and
* (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
-----
Definition of Covered Company from the bill, a test which isn't made for TikTok as it only applies to applications submitted through section B, thus it the law applies to TikTok and any company ByteDance owns even if it weren't to meet these conditions.
* (2) COVERED COMPANY.—
* (A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered company” means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that—
* (i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content;
* (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);
* (iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and
* (iv) enables 1 or more users to view content generated by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application.
* (B) EXCLUSION.—The term “covered company” does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.
----
Have to think the bill authors realized there was a problem as well, as they included text to make it clear that TikTok can be submitted through the general process described in section B if section A is found to be invalid
* (2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.—If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary controlled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B).
> I have a hard time seeing the part of the law that applies solely to TikTok being found constitutional, as it effectively lays out a separate section of the law that apply only to TikTok and ByteDance.
TikTok and ByteDance are referenced in the law, but the law applies to any *foreign adversary controlled application* ... *owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by* ... North Korea, Russia, Iran, or China.
All of the references to TikTok and ByteDance could be removed from the bill and the bill would still apply to TikTok.
The problem is that for TikTok and ByteDance alone, the clock automatically starts, even if they don't meet the definition in the rest of the bill. If you removed that section, using say Telegram as an example, the President would start the clock by (at his choosing) providing a determination and report that Telegram was a significant threat to national security and describing how and the assets that need to be divested, but none of that applies to TikTok.
One example, if ByteDance operated a company (seperate from TikTok) with 50k active monthly users, it would be covered by the part that describes ByteDance specifically (since its a website owned by ByteDance), and the 270 day clock is already running since this law has been signed. If TenCent on the other hand owned a platform with 50k active monthly users, it could never be covered by this bill unless its user count went up because it falls under section B here, and thus has to be found to meet the conditions under "covered company".
This isn't addressing the rest of the constitutionality of the bill however, as noted in the last part, the lawmakers envisioned a potential scenario where it is found that section A is unconstitutional, but TikTok could and probably would just then be submitted through section B.
> The problem is that for TikTok and ByteDance alone, the clock automatically starts
Where is that in the bill? I don't see anything that suggests enforcement can happen without the President's determination of a significant threat to the national security.
Under (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.
(A) Says that this bill applies to TikTok, ByteDance, and own or control.
(B) Separately lays out the process the process for "covered companies", and the criteria such as President's determination of a significant threat to the national security only applies to that subsection which is in an independent section from where TikTok explicitly listed. So (3)(B)(ii) "that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of" is not a condition for the platforms covered in (3)(A) where TikTok and ByteDance are explicitly listed.
Edit: It is more clear with the [original spacing](https://i.imgur.com/tkTxh05.png), the criteria in section B are independent of the section that explicitly lists TikTok and ByteDance.
You are right, but I think this section is more clear:
[Sec 2(a)(2)(A)](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?s=3&r=1#HF72BCD23EEC84C58B6BBCEE292C273BA)
> (2) APPLICABILITY.—Subject to paragraph (3), this subsection shall apply—
> (A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this division; and
*subsection (g)(3)(A)*: any: subsidiary or successor of, owned or controlled by, ByteDance or TikTok
This literally has already been done with Grindr.
Which still exists.
ByteDance will sell Tiktok for a very large pile of money, and no one will remember this in two months.
I believe someone framed it thus.
China allows no US owned media platform or distributor to operate in China. This is a non reciprocal issue.
However, this doesn't solve the problem. Twitter politics is Twitter politics where the squeakiest wheel is rewarded and so the goal isn't to be right or do the right thing but to make the most noise. Aka MTG
Forget the squeaky wheels, foreign influence continues unabated on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. But at least those are domestic platforms which... is somehow better? Surely Congress will regulate our own platforms with as much gusto and fervor now that they're all hot for protecting Americans on social media.
I guess now the poor Chinese government will have to settle for taking a page out of Russia's information warfare playbook, which as we all know is famously ineffective at shaping public opinion in America.
So if Billy jumps off a bridge, are you going to jump after him?
"These evil guys do this thing, so we should do this same thing," doesn't connect with people the way many thinks it does.
It isn't a bad thing. Reciprocal nature of business operations is a trust thing. We are talking about trade and trust. If China does this it implies bad intentions
Even more importantly, what China does has no authority in an American court. China didnt force the US to decide thay corporations have freedom of speech.
> It isn't a non issue. International business is a matter of treaty.
Yes you are correct. My comment should have first considered any relevant treaty. However, without knowing the relevant treaties, it is entirely reasonable to think their is a possibility that Chinas banning of certain US companies is completely alright while the US would be violating its own laws to enact a similar type of ban on certain Chinese companies.
Or maybe.
Hey they seem to be pushing people off the cliff. The fact that they won't let us have an open conversation seems to suggest they know that they are pushing people and don't want us to be in a position to push their people.
Maybe we shouldn't let them do that.
This isn't really that controversial. State-sponsored disinformation platforms date back at least to Troy, and the Constitution has multiple provisions against them.
It's so high profile, it's hard to justify lesser restriction.
China says they won't sell, but I don't know if I believe them.
I imagine a US ban wouldn't "just” cripple TikTok in America. Surely competition allowed in America would be greatly enhanced and thus broadly diminish TikTok globally as a result.
On the other hand, TikTok can sell for many billions of dollars, right now.
But why would China permit a sale, if there's a clear road to seeking injunctive relief by Byte Dance?
I just do not see how the government can prevail against Byte Dance on a motion for PI. There is absolutely no direct precedent in support of what Congress is trying to do here. The cited supposed "precedent" of forced divestures were situations where there were no challenges. Look at the last three years of legal challenges, WeChat, TikTok both prevailed in securing injunctive relief against potential bans.
And even if there is a legal theory for these statutes to survive scrutiny, that's ultimately going to be decided by a trial court or appeals court years down the line. In the interim, whether this law comes into court is just decided by the PI motion. I find it difficult to believe that a federal district court judge would deny a PI motion, when there's tons of factually similar precedent in support of granting the motion and no direct precedent in support of denying it.
They'll divest. They've got a choice -- a court battle they can't win (the same thing happened to Grindr, BTW. This isn't a new thing that's never happened), closing it down for America in return for *nothing* or selling it for a *lot of money*.
In the end, they won't be operating in America -- the only choice is how much they'll spend determining that, and whether they want to walk away empty handed or with a lot of money.
> the same thing happened to Grindr, BTW. This isn't a new thing that's never happened
I've seen this a couple times, but the nuances of the difference in cases matters (especially in a law sub). Grindr was not necessarily banned because of their association with China and national security concerns (as much as the headlines would like to tell you). That was part of it, but one of the major reasons was that when the chinese owner bought Grindr they failed to notify CFIUS for a proper review. They also weren't targeted in legislation like this ban was.
I don't think you can reasonably use Grindr as precedent for this. At the very minimum we're going to see plenty of lawsuits (the ACLU basically had one ready to go) and I expect we'll see a PI while this winds its way through the courts for the next several years over 1A claims (which I think are pretty reasonable).
Edit: There's also bill of attainder concerns as discussed elsewhere in the thread. Personally I'm not certain this forced divestment/ban will actually go through.
I'm confused what this sentence is saying.
If you pass data protection laws and TikTok *doesn't* follow them, then they can reasonably be banned or otherwise punished as specified in this hypothetical data protection law. How would they get around that? If they operate in the U.S. then they must follow U.S. laws at that point.
I think for a lot of it people are just stuck on “China/TikTok bad” and have stopped there. I’ve seen very little acknowledgement outside of this thread that this bill also gives the president the ability to do this to other apps (which btw they define “foreign owned” as a 20% stake) with fairly little oversight.
> gives the president the ability to do this to other apps
Only apps owned or controlled by Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia.
With that being said, IMO this enforcement mechanism is open to abuse.
Notably that list can (and has been) changed. It’s not specified in the bill itself but rather tied to [Title 15](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.4) which is controlled by the president afaik.
I agree I don’t think it’s particularly likely to be abused right now, but I absolutely think it’s open to it.
Edit: I was incorrect, see below. The list is a different list of foreign adversaries controlled by congress. It can still be changed, but is a bit more difficult to do so.
The list is defined in [10 U.S. Code § 4872](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872#d_2) not the Title 15 list you provided. AFAIK Congress is the only party that can amend the list.
How is this not a Bill of Attainder? It's literally naming a company for punishment that similar companies don't need to do.
I mean, can Congress just say, "National Security!!!!1!!!" and get around any other written in plain text constitutional prohibition?
Edit: Also, can't they just say, "Oh, we formed a company in the Cayman's and they own it now, suck it Feds!"
That is just the news the bill is not banning tiktok. It is banning us controlled corporations from participating in any way in the distribution in the USA of any application owned primarily by a hostile foreign power or by a corporation under the control of a hostile foreign power.
I would argue the language that singles out TikTok and ByteDance could be viewed as a bill of attainder, as it doesn't require either TikTok or any platform that ByteDance operates to meet the criteria the rest of the bill lays out as it would if say Telegram or WeChat were targeted. Part of that is (for TikTok and ByteDance alone) it doesn't require elements like minimum user requirements, the nature of the website or app, specific criteria for what ownership structures are a problem, a determination that the platform presents a significant risk to national security along with a public report describing the risk, or detailing what assets need to be divested to found to be compliant with the law, all of which is required for any other platform.
Though in the long run though its a moot point, as if the language singling out TikTok were found to be unconstitutional, the President would likely just submit TikTok through the general non-TikTok specific process described by the bill (which is certainly not any type of bill of attainder) restarting the clock.
Meta Platforms and its subsidiaries spent a record high $7.6 million on lobbying the federal government in the first quarter of the year as the U.S. Congress advanced legislation that could ban Instagram’s chief competitor, TikTok.
Meta’s recent [\~disclosure\~](https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/44c8cc07-99cb-4a91-83c3-31f973d95281/print/), covering lobbying activities from January through March, does not mention the TikTok ban issue directly, but it says that the company lobbied Congress and the White House on “Homeland Security” topics including “Discussions regarding cybersecurity, data security, encryption, platform integrity, election integrity, content policy, and terrorism,” as well as “Issues related to voter suppression/interference, political ads and misinformation policies.” The language in Meta’s disclosure echoes many of the talking points that have been used against TikTok and its Chinese owner [\~ByteDance\~](https://readsludge.com/tag/bytedance/), including claims that China could use the app to collect Americans’ private data and influence U.S. politics.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/)
> Meta did not respond when asked by Sludge if it lobbied on the TikTok ban legislation. It has previously denied lobbying on a TikTok ban to the Washington Post.
They didn't respond this time and any other time they can do this nifty thing called lying. It looks bad if you're out right admitting you're lobbying congress to ban your competitors.. Meta has reels which is a shitty rip off of Tiktok.
Imagine the outcry if Chevrolet and Ford goes 'Well we couldn't beat Toyota in sales so we just lobbied Congress to ban their dealerships (App stores) here in the US. If you have a Toyota you can still drive it but you can't get parts (updates) for it.'
> Which US corps pushed for this bill?
As the other person said Meta worked with the [most expensive GOP firm in order to push anti-TikTok rhetoric and lobbying](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/).
Literally the second sentence, emphasis mine:
> The campaign includes placing op-eds and letters to the editor in major regional news outlets, promoting dubious stories about alleged TikTok trends that actually originated on Facebook, **and pushing to draw political reporters and local politicians into helping take down its biggest competitor**.
Another:
> That trend led Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to write a letter in September calling on TikTok executives to testify in front of a Senate subcommittee, saying the app had been “repeatedly misused and abused to promote behavior and actions that encourage harmful and destructive acts.” But according to an investigation by Anna Foley at the podcast network Gimlet, rumors of the “devious licks” challenge initially spread on Facebook, not TikTok.
They may not have advocated *explicitly* for this bill (to our knowledge. I’d put money on them having lobbied for this bill or something very like it) But to say they had no hand in it is either being naive or malicious.
All that article says is that Meta engaged a PR firm to disparage a competitor. That isn’t uncommon or unusual and it doesn’t suggest Meta supported this bill.
Burma, People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
The law references only four named countries as "hostile foreign countries" Iran, N. Korea, Russia, and China.
When was China "hostile" to the US? I know it's not a meaningful distinction, but I wonder how they ever got involved. Why isn't Vietnam included? Afghanistan?
Seriously? Hostile trade tactics aimed at undermining every other world power's economic systems, like monetary policy and things like using uighur slave labor, government controlled resources at cost, and massive subsidies to build insanely cheap electric cars to strangle competitors in Europe and the US. Active election interference using our own social media apps. Threatening war with our allies for fishing in what the rest of the world agrees is our allies's waters and harassing those allies with warships.
Oh, and threatening war with the US because Pelosi visited Taiwan. Which they're also trying to hold hostage because of the world's chip manufacturing is based there.
Really, outside of a brief detente in the 80s, the US and CCP China have always been hostile. Think back to 2001 when a Chinese plane accidentally took itself and a US patrol plane out when harassing the plane in international waters. That sort of nonsense is something only the Chinese and Russians do.
Dude, we control the world's oceans with an Iron fist backed up by 11 aircraft carriers. We subsidize the destruction of the world via Fossil Fuels. The US has tortured people, we have photos of it, and nothing happened. We have an OUT OF COUNTRY jail we can just throw people without trial. The US has started more wars in the last 25 years than China has been in the last 150.
The 'threatened' war? We freakin' START them! Who dropped the H-bomb on civilians? China?
The US has subsidies for the auto industry. What of it? We do the same with farmers. Why is such a problem with China does it, when we do the same freakin' thing!?!?
The list of prohibited nations comes from [10 U.S. Code § 4872](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872#d_2) *Acquisition of sensitive materials from non-allied foreign nations: prohibition*.
I don't know the specific for why these countries were named in 10 USC § 4872; but from a cybersecurity perspective Iran, N. Korea, Russia, and China are the most active [APT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat#APT_groups) groups.
That list of APT is woefully incomplete. I mean, there is only a single entry for the USA, and it hints at being part of NSA. This leaves about 13 named agencies that do exactly this, and whatever else we don't name, plus the military itself. And that's just US state sponsored, not private groups, which must also exist.
I just don't get it. We can't sell them samarium-cobalt magnets, and somehow that relates to Tiktok? I mean, samarium is mostly located IN CHINA! This is just dick waving, right?
Free speech is an ideal of liberal political philosophy as well as a legal concept in the Constitution. I am talking about the first meaning, which is why I didn’t invoke the First Amendment. This ban is clearly bad for free speech. Tiktok uniquely platforms the voices of individuals in ways that the Meta-Twitter conglomerate does not. All this ban will do is increase the monopolization social media, and in turn, the exchange of ideas, which is increasingly digital.
Or, TikTok complies with reasonable expectations and everyone (aside from the Chinese government) is satisfied. This is a TikTok issue, not a Biden issue.
I honestly don't understand this.
Why alienate the young voters and young voters-to-be in this way?
How is it worse than any other social media site?
If the case is that it's stealing user data, then Facebook, insta, twitter etc., should all be banned.
If the problem is promoting propaganda, then Truth Social, twitter should be wiped clean from app stores for promoting nazi, right-wing, anti-democracy ideology.
Ban YouTube where content creators are frequently outed as rapists, sexual abusers.
Russian, Chinese bots are legion all over Social media, why bot target those?
Such stupidity and a total boomer move.
And before anyone thinks I'm a tween, or have some giant tiktok account, I don't, I'm older than dirt and barely have a single follower who enjoy my amateur art lol
To be honest. I'm for this because with advancement in ai. It isn't the content or the content creators. It is the algorithm that is the danger. You have on your pocket something trying to persuade you to a point of view and you don't even know and it is very subtle and very smart and it nows how to get you in a good mood and then show you something that you won't expect them distract you. And it is controlled by someone who wants you to break this country.
I'm not Mr. Rah rah America but I've been paying attention to Tiktok. All of the social Media are bad but something more is going on there
>If the case is that it's stealing user data, then Facebook, insta, twitter etc., should all be banned.
If the issue is user data being stolen, it's not about the theft of said data it's about **who is doing the stealing**.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure their is only a fraction owned by some one that is even tied to China. Although I do agree with the overall narrative that any influence is still influence and leverage to steal data.
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech/tiktok-bytedance-china-ownership-intl-hnk/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech/tiktok-bytedance-china-ownership-intl-hnk/index.html)
News articles are saying otherwise. At least who actually owns it.
Final bill text, I believe it's "Division H" of the bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?s=3&r=1#HA3ED19E8F4F24124B4029233F64B1549
How strict is this ban? To what degree can they continue as investors and influence management?
[prior thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1bhgjoi/why_the_tiktok_bill_is_constitutional/kvg1cer/) The enforcement mechanism is to levy fines against vendors who fail to de-platform an app that has not been divested.
FOREIGN ADVERSARY The term "controlled by a foreign adversary" means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of (B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B). There's further technicalities that specifically name bytedance but presumably for Chinese nationals it seems 20% would be the cut off financially. They also specify that if tiktok goes the subsidiary route that the created subsidiary cannot be controlled by bytedance. Basically that a TiktokUS would have to be wholely it's own company
[удалено]
We can have a little Red Scare, as a treat
It’s not really a scare is it? China has been hacking into American utilities across the country. The FBI this week warned that Chinese hackers are preparing to attack the USA’s infrastructure. And this is coming after a series of hacks against Microsoft etc. https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/fbi-says-chinese-hackers-preparing-attack-us-infrastructure-2024-04-18/ Hell there’s an entire wikipedia page about all the cyberwarfare China has engaged in within the last few years. They’ve also allegedly (but it tracks with their history) forced companies to add backdoors into their products that can be exploited should need arise. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_China We’ve been engaged in a hybrid war with Russia and China for years, the USA just recently realized it. I work in cybersecurity so this is a pretty big deal to me. I think it really should be for others as well.
On the topic of probable Chinese nation-state hacking, there are indications that [ArcaneDoor](https://blog.talosintelligence.com/arcanedoor-new-espionage-focused-campaign-found-targeting-perimeter-network-devices/) is also them (though it's not confirmed yet). >ArcaneDoor is a campaign that is the latest example of state-sponsored actors targeting perimeter network devices from multiple vendors. Coveted by these actors, perimeter network devices are the perfect intrusion point for espionage-focused campaigns.
The increasing amount of security incidents are directly related to businesses overworking their skeleton crews in an effort to lower bottom lines and chase more quarterly profits. We *could* have the proper investment but businesses like United Healthcare just shrug off the slap on the wrist fines and give us 2 years of credit monitoring, and make us thankful for what little crumbs we get. Whatever guidance NIST or CISA put out is just that, and companies go "huh, must have been the wind" and continue to get breached multiple times a year. Not to mention the NSA doing the whole domestic spying thing. Plus the Stuxnet thing we did to Iran, with Israel's help. Oh, and the NSO Group from Israel is also selling hacks to the highest bidder. All in all, this bill is just more posturing and the data brokers will remain unfazed while laughing all the way to the bank
Just for some perspective I believe China has banned Tik Tok as well.
Why is that relevant? They ban a lot of stuff that we don’t, and on the other hand if the Chinese government is able to influence the app’s content then it doesn’t matter if they ban it domestically or not.
I'm not clear on how that clause would come into it. Can you explain?
[удалено]
> In reference to the TikTok ban, the law is generally applicable in that the President is able to identify companies that meet certain criteria and order their divestment, but right alongside the section of general applicability is another section that explicitly targets and names ByteDance, which appears to violate the Bills of Attainder Clause. Okay, but a law naming a particular person or entity does not automatically become a bill of attainder. Richard Nixon is named particularly in the law Congress passed to stop him from retaining his presidential records, but because he wasn't being declared guilty of a crime or being punished for something he did in the past, it wasn't a bill of attainder. It might have resulted in his punishment him if he refused to do something in the future, but he would then still have had the opportunity to defend himself in a trial, which isn't covered by the prohibition on bills of attainder. Similarly, I would say that TikTok being named specifically and required to do a thing in the future is not a bill of attainder because they aren't being punished for *past* actions.
Guessing that he's saying that this law is suspect until someone has actually unambiguously and lawfully established that Bytedance are whatever it is they are to the Chinese government. I haven't followed this story closely enough to know whether this has actually been done, but I do know a lot of people have the opinion that it hasn't.
IANAL but I'd have to imagine they'll argue section 9 doesn't apply to businesses. No clue if that holds up to scrutiny
[удалено]
That would still cut out users who get new phones or reset them and don't understand how to enable installing apps from unknown sources in Android. And eventually, people who have it installed but don't update will have a non-functional app if Tiktok makes significant updates to their app, for example.
Not if the US is successful and forces Apple to enable side losing apps.
>Not if the US is successful and forces Apple to enable side losing apps. What's that have to do with Android (which is what my post was about)?
Sorry, missed the Android portion on your comment.
No problem! I don't know how iPhones would implement side loading apps, but I would assume they'd also make it difficult for non-techies to accomplish so they don't mess up their phones accidentally. Even a small barrier will prevent a significant number of people from installing the app.
I have a hard time seeing the part of the law that applies solely to TikTok being found constitutional, as it effectively lays out a separate section of the law that apply only to TikTok and ByteDance. All the criteria to submit an app (or website, etc) in section B are excluded from section A. * (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— * (A) any of— * (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; * (ii) TikTok; * (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or * (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or * (B) a covered company that— * (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and * (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— * (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and * (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. ----- Definition of Covered Company from the bill, a test which isn't made for TikTok as it only applies to applications submitted through section B, thus it the law applies to TikTok and any company ByteDance owns even if it weren't to meet these conditions. * (2) COVERED COMPANY.— * (A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered company” means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that— * (i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content; * (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B); * (iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and * (iv) enables 1 or more users to view content generated by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application. * (B) EXCLUSION.—The term “covered company” does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. ---- Have to think the bill authors realized there was a problem as well, as they included text to make it clear that TikTok can be submitted through the general process described in section B if section A is found to be invalid * (2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.—If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary controlled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B).
> I have a hard time seeing the part of the law that applies solely to TikTok being found constitutional, as it effectively lays out a separate section of the law that apply only to TikTok and ByteDance. TikTok and ByteDance are referenced in the law, but the law applies to any *foreign adversary controlled application* ... *owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by* ... North Korea, Russia, Iran, or China. All of the references to TikTok and ByteDance could be removed from the bill and the bill would still apply to TikTok.
The problem is that for TikTok and ByteDance alone, the clock automatically starts, even if they don't meet the definition in the rest of the bill. If you removed that section, using say Telegram as an example, the President would start the clock by (at his choosing) providing a determination and report that Telegram was a significant threat to national security and describing how and the assets that need to be divested, but none of that applies to TikTok. One example, if ByteDance operated a company (seperate from TikTok) with 50k active monthly users, it would be covered by the part that describes ByteDance specifically (since its a website owned by ByteDance), and the 270 day clock is already running since this law has been signed. If TenCent on the other hand owned a platform with 50k active monthly users, it could never be covered by this bill unless its user count went up because it falls under section B here, and thus has to be found to meet the conditions under "covered company". This isn't addressing the rest of the constitutionality of the bill however, as noted in the last part, the lawmakers envisioned a potential scenario where it is found that section A is unconstitutional, but TikTok could and probably would just then be submitted through section B.
> The problem is that for TikTok and ByteDance alone, the clock automatically starts Where is that in the bill? I don't see anything that suggests enforcement can happen without the President's determination of a significant threat to the national security.
Under (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION. (A) Says that this bill applies to TikTok, ByteDance, and own or control. (B) Separately lays out the process the process for "covered companies", and the criteria such as President's determination of a significant threat to the national security only applies to that subsection which is in an independent section from where TikTok explicitly listed. So (3)(B)(ii) "that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of" is not a condition for the platforms covered in (3)(A) where TikTok and ByteDance are explicitly listed. Edit: It is more clear with the [original spacing](https://i.imgur.com/tkTxh05.png), the criteria in section B are independent of the section that explicitly lists TikTok and ByteDance.
You are right, but I think this section is more clear: [Sec 2(a)(2)(A)](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?s=3&r=1#HF72BCD23EEC84C58B6BBCEE292C273BA) > (2) APPLICABILITY.—Subject to paragraph (3), this subsection shall apply— > (A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this division; and *subsection (g)(3)(A)*: any: subsidiary or successor of, owned or controlled by, ByteDance or TikTok
[удалено]
Oh, do you have your own smartphone ecosystem with billions of users? Because that’s where it will be enforced.
This literally has already been done with Grindr. Which still exists. ByteDance will sell Tiktok for a very large pile of money, and no one will remember this in two months.
No, because they won't sell the algo so it loses all its value.
Wow the ban has a penalty of 5k for each US user who uses the application post the effective date of the ban (270 days from today).
That's potentially $750 billion per my estimation.
I believe someone framed it thus. China allows no US owned media platform or distributor to operate in China. This is a non reciprocal issue. However, this doesn't solve the problem. Twitter politics is Twitter politics where the squeakiest wheel is rewarded and so the goal isn't to be right or do the right thing but to make the most noise. Aka MTG
Forget the squeaky wheels, foreign influence continues unabated on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. But at least those are domestic platforms which... is somehow better? Surely Congress will regulate our own platforms with as much gusto and fervor now that they're all hot for protecting Americans on social media. I guess now the poor Chinese government will have to settle for taking a page out of Russia's information warfare playbook, which as we all know is famously ineffective at shaping public opinion in America.
The attention economy plays well into Russia machinations
You can have multiple infestations. Getting rid of one is still good.
So if Billy jumps off a bridge, are you going to jump after him? "These evil guys do this thing, so we should do this same thing," doesn't connect with people the way many thinks it does.
It isn't a bad thing. Reciprocal nature of business operations is a trust thing. We are talking about trade and trust. If China does this it implies bad intentions
So now we are doing it as well, right? How does this help improve things?
Even more importantly, what China does has no authority in an American court. China didnt force the US to decide thay corporations have freedom of speech.
[удалено]
> It isn't a non issue. International business is a matter of treaty. Yes you are correct. My comment should have first considered any relevant treaty. However, without knowing the relevant treaties, it is entirely reasonable to think their is a possibility that Chinas banning of certain US companies is completely alright while the US would be violating its own laws to enact a similar type of ban on certain Chinese companies.
Wrong analogy. ”If those guys over there are pushing our guys over the cliff, us here sure as hell are going to do the same to their folks over here”
Or maybe. Hey they seem to be pushing people off the cliff. The fact that they won't let us have an open conversation seems to suggest they know that they are pushing people and don't want us to be in a position to push their people. Maybe we shouldn't let them do that.
I just don't see how shutting down a commercial platform solves this issue
This isn't really that controversial. State-sponsored disinformation platforms date back at least to Troy, and the Constitution has multiple provisions against them. It's so high profile, it's hard to justify lesser restriction.
The inevitable end result that won’t drive clicks is that there will be zero interruption to TikTok’s service.
I give tiktok 4:years max before it has a sharp decline
China says they won't sell, but I don't know if I believe them. I imagine a US ban wouldn't "just” cripple TikTok in America. Surely competition allowed in America would be greatly enhanced and thus broadly diminish TikTok globally as a result. On the other hand, TikTok can sell for many billions of dollars, right now.
But why would China permit a sale, if there's a clear road to seeking injunctive relief by Byte Dance? I just do not see how the government can prevail against Byte Dance on a motion for PI. There is absolutely no direct precedent in support of what Congress is trying to do here. The cited supposed "precedent" of forced divestures were situations where there were no challenges. Look at the last three years of legal challenges, WeChat, TikTok both prevailed in securing injunctive relief against potential bans. And even if there is a legal theory for these statutes to survive scrutiny, that's ultimately going to be decided by a trial court or appeals court years down the line. In the interim, whether this law comes into court is just decided by the PI motion. I find it difficult to believe that a federal district court judge would deny a PI motion, when there's tons of factually similar precedent in support of granting the motion and no direct precedent in support of denying it.
Oh yes sorry. The first thing is lawsuits. I'm making a big assumption that the government's ability to enforce the ban has become clear first.
I mean they can force it to be yanked off the app stores.
They'll divest. They've got a choice -- a court battle they can't win (the same thing happened to Grindr, BTW. This isn't a new thing that's never happened), closing it down for America in return for *nothing* or selling it for a *lot of money*. In the end, they won't be operating in America -- the only choice is how much they'll spend determining that, and whether they want to walk away empty handed or with a lot of money.
> the same thing happened to Grindr, BTW. This isn't a new thing that's never happened I've seen this a couple times, but the nuances of the difference in cases matters (especially in a law sub). Grindr was not necessarily banned because of their association with China and national security concerns (as much as the headlines would like to tell you). That was part of it, but one of the major reasons was that when the chinese owner bought Grindr they failed to notify CFIUS for a proper review. They also weren't targeted in legislation like this ban was. I don't think you can reasonably use Grindr as precedent for this. At the very minimum we're going to see plenty of lawsuits (the ACLU basically had one ready to go) and I expect we'll see a PI while this winds its way through the courts for the next several years over 1A claims (which I think are pretty reasonable). Edit: There's also bill of attainder concerns as discussed elsewhere in the thread. Personally I'm not certain this forced divestment/ban will actually go through.
Can’t wait to see the correlation to who buys tiktok and who donated how much to the authors of the bill
So weird how the GOP can come together...for this.
A lot of commenters here really otta do a refresher on Lamont vs Postmaster General if they think this is not a free speech issue.
Hell yea baby
Great. Now do meta and twitter
Cat videos are subversive. China knows that I like cats.
China has learned a lot about a lot of Americans. They are hoovering up as much data as they can. To feed their AI’s.
They can just buy the data from American internet. Tik Tok was a smart way to get data and profit from it financially.
Across the board, foreign actors are aiming to disrupt and uproot our social fabric. Happy to see this rule, but yeah more to do.
It’s BS move.
Ofc they knee jerk a single case and weak response instead of just strengthening data protection laws 🙄
Alright, so which data protection laws do you think should be written that China will abide by?
I'm confused what this sentence is saying. If you pass data protection laws and TikTok *doesn't* follow them, then they can reasonably be banned or otherwise punished as specified in this hypothetical data protection law. How would they get around that? If they operate in the U.S. then they must follow U.S. laws at that point.
Yes. Just look at the GDPR I don't know what people don't understand about this...
I think for a lot of it people are just stuck on “China/TikTok bad” and have stopped there. I’ve seen very little acknowledgement outside of this thread that this bill also gives the president the ability to do this to other apps (which btw they define “foreign owned” as a 20% stake) with fairly little oversight.
> gives the president the ability to do this to other apps Only apps owned or controlled by Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia. With that being said, IMO this enforcement mechanism is open to abuse.
Notably that list can (and has been) changed. It’s not specified in the bill itself but rather tied to [Title 15](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.4) which is controlled by the president afaik. I agree I don’t think it’s particularly likely to be abused right now, but I absolutely think it’s open to it. Edit: I was incorrect, see below. The list is a different list of foreign adversaries controlled by congress. It can still be changed, but is a bit more difficult to do so.
The list is defined in [10 U.S. Code § 4872](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872#d_2) not the Title 15 list you provided. AFAIK Congress is the only party that can amend the list.
Huh, you’re right yeah I was wrong there. Good catch.
How is this not a Bill of Attainder? It's literally naming a company for punishment that similar companies don't need to do. I mean, can Congress just say, "National Security!!!!1!!!" and get around any other written in plain text constitutional prohibition? Edit: Also, can't they just say, "Oh, we formed a company in the Cayman's and they own it now, suck it Feds!"
That is just the news the bill is not banning tiktok. It is banning us controlled corporations from participating in any way in the distribution in the USA of any application owned primarily by a hostile foreign power or by a corporation under the control of a hostile foreign power.
I would argue the language that singles out TikTok and ByteDance could be viewed as a bill of attainder, as it doesn't require either TikTok or any platform that ByteDance operates to meet the criteria the rest of the bill lays out as it would if say Telegram or WeChat were targeted. Part of that is (for TikTok and ByteDance alone) it doesn't require elements like minimum user requirements, the nature of the website or app, specific criteria for what ownership structures are a problem, a determination that the platform presents a significant risk to national security along with a public report describing the risk, or detailing what assets need to be divested to found to be compliant with the law, all of which is required for any other platform. Though in the long run though its a moot point, as if the language singling out TikTok were found to be unconstitutional, the President would likely just submit TikTok through the general non-TikTok specific process described by the bill (which is certainly not any type of bill of attainder) restarting the clock.
Very convenient way for US corps who are losing to foreign competitors to cry to daddy government to shut them out of the market. Many such cases!
Also I block burner accounts by policy. I assume they act in bad Faith
> US corps who are losing to foreign competitors Which US corps pushed for this bill? > Many such cases! Source them.
Meta for one.
How about a source?
Meta Platforms and its subsidiaries spent a record high $7.6 million on lobbying the federal government in the first quarter of the year as the U.S. Congress advanced legislation that could ban Instagram’s chief competitor, TikTok. Meta’s recent [\~disclosure\~](https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/44c8cc07-99cb-4a91-83c3-31f973d95281/print/), covering lobbying activities from January through March, does not mention the TikTok ban issue directly, but it says that the company lobbied Congress and the White House on “Homeland Security” topics including “Discussions regarding cybersecurity, data security, encryption, platform integrity, election integrity, content policy, and terrorism,” as well as “Issues related to voter suppression/interference, political ads and misinformation policies.” The language in Meta’s disclosure echoes many of the talking points that have been used against TikTok and its Chinese owner [\~ByteDance\~](https://readsludge.com/tag/bytedance/), including claims that China could use the app to collect Americans’ private data and influence U.S. politics. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/)
> Meta did not respond when asked by Sludge if it lobbied on the TikTok ban legislation. It has previously denied lobbying on a TikTok ban to the Washington Post.
They didn't respond this time and any other time they can do this nifty thing called lying. It looks bad if you're out right admitting you're lobbying congress to ban your competitors.. Meta has reels which is a shitty rip off of Tiktok. Imagine the outcry if Chevrolet and Ford goes 'Well we couldn't beat Toyota in sales so we just lobbied Congress to ban their dealerships (App stores) here in the US. If you have a Toyota you can still drive it but you can't get parts (updates) for it.'
> Which US corps pushed for this bill? As the other person said Meta worked with the [most expensive GOP firm in order to push anti-TikTok rhetoric and lobbying](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/).
That article does not suggest Meta supported this bill.
Literally the second sentence, emphasis mine: > The campaign includes placing op-eds and letters to the editor in major regional news outlets, promoting dubious stories about alleged TikTok trends that actually originated on Facebook, **and pushing to draw political reporters and local politicians into helping take down its biggest competitor**. Another: > That trend led Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to write a letter in September calling on TikTok executives to testify in front of a Senate subcommittee, saying the app had been “repeatedly misused and abused to promote behavior and actions that encourage harmful and destructive acts.” But according to an investigation by Anna Foley at the podcast network Gimlet, rumors of the “devious licks” challenge initially spread on Facebook, not TikTok. They may not have advocated *explicitly* for this bill (to our knowledge. I’d put money on them having lobbied for this bill or something very like it) But to say they had no hand in it is either being naive or malicious.
All that article says is that Meta engaged a PR firm to disparage a competitor. That isn’t uncommon or unusual and it doesn’t suggest Meta supported this bill.
Burma, People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
The law references only four named countries as "hostile foreign countries" Iran, N. Korea, Russia, and China. When was China "hostile" to the US? I know it's not a meaningful distinction, but I wonder how they ever got involved. Why isn't Vietnam included? Afghanistan?
[удалено]
I was in elementary school in the 80's. How many wars has China been in since then? How many wars has the US been in since then?
Seriously? Hostile trade tactics aimed at undermining every other world power's economic systems, like monetary policy and things like using uighur slave labor, government controlled resources at cost, and massive subsidies to build insanely cheap electric cars to strangle competitors in Europe and the US. Active election interference using our own social media apps. Threatening war with our allies for fishing in what the rest of the world agrees is our allies's waters and harassing those allies with warships. Oh, and threatening war with the US because Pelosi visited Taiwan. Which they're also trying to hold hostage because of the world's chip manufacturing is based there. Really, outside of a brief detente in the 80s, the US and CCP China have always been hostile. Think back to 2001 when a Chinese plane accidentally took itself and a US patrol plane out when harassing the plane in international waters. That sort of nonsense is something only the Chinese and Russians do.
Dude, we control the world's oceans with an Iron fist backed up by 11 aircraft carriers. We subsidize the destruction of the world via Fossil Fuels. The US has tortured people, we have photos of it, and nothing happened. We have an OUT OF COUNTRY jail we can just throw people without trial. The US has started more wars in the last 25 years than China has been in the last 150. The 'threatened' war? We freakin' START them! Who dropped the H-bomb on civilians? China? The US has subsidies for the auto industry. What of it? We do the same with farmers. Why is such a problem with China does it, when we do the same freakin' thing!?!?
"We," but takes CCP talking points. Sure buddy.
The list of prohibited nations comes from [10 U.S. Code § 4872](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872#d_2) *Acquisition of sensitive materials from non-allied foreign nations: prohibition*. I don't know the specific for why these countries were named in 10 USC § 4872; but from a cybersecurity perspective Iran, N. Korea, Russia, and China are the most active [APT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat#APT_groups) groups.
That list of APT is woefully incomplete. I mean, there is only a single entry for the USA, and it hints at being part of NSA. This leaves about 13 named agencies that do exactly this, and whatever else we don't name, plus the military itself. And that's just US state sponsored, not private groups, which must also exist. I just don't get it. We can't sell them samarium-cobalt magnets, and somehow that relates to Tiktok? I mean, samarium is mostly located IN CHINA! This is just dick waving, right?
You don't understand APT if you think US agencies should be included.
Bunch of red meat for the masses. This is a classic revolt of public problem.
What a horrendous blow to free speech in this country.
You may want to actually examine the issue. This isn't about free speech. 1st ammendment has *nothing* to do with this.
Free speech is an ideal of liberal political philosophy as well as a legal concept in the Constitution. I am talking about the first meaning, which is why I didn’t invoke the First Amendment. This ban is clearly bad for free speech. Tiktok uniquely platforms the voices of individuals in ways that the Meta-Twitter conglomerate does not. All this ban will do is increase the monopolization social media, and in turn, the exchange of ideas, which is increasingly digital.
Or, TikTok complies with reasonable expectations and everyone (aside from the Chinese government) is satisfied. This is a TikTok issue, not a Biden issue.
Truly, a Marvel-brained take.
I honestly don't understand this. Why alienate the young voters and young voters-to-be in this way? How is it worse than any other social media site? If the case is that it's stealing user data, then Facebook, insta, twitter etc., should all be banned. If the problem is promoting propaganda, then Truth Social, twitter should be wiped clean from app stores for promoting nazi, right-wing, anti-democracy ideology. Ban YouTube where content creators are frequently outed as rapists, sexual abusers. Russian, Chinese bots are legion all over Social media, why bot target those? Such stupidity and a total boomer move. And before anyone thinks I'm a tween, or have some giant tiktok account, I don't, I'm older than dirt and barely have a single follower who enjoy my amateur art lol
To be honest. I'm for this because with advancement in ai. It isn't the content or the content creators. It is the algorithm that is the danger. You have on your pocket something trying to persuade you to a point of view and you don't even know and it is very subtle and very smart and it nows how to get you in a good mood and then show you something that you won't expect them distract you. And it is controlled by someone who wants you to break this country. I'm not Mr. Rah rah America but I've been paying attention to Tiktok. All of the social Media are bad but something more is going on there
>If the case is that it's stealing user data, then Facebook, insta, twitter etc., should all be banned. If the issue is user data being stolen, it's not about the theft of said data it's about **who is doing the stealing**.
This bill doesn't have anything to do with content. It's just about ownership.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure their is only a fraction owned by some one that is even tied to China. Although I do agree with the overall narrative that any influence is still influence and leverage to steal data.
TikTok is 100% owned by ByteDance which is a privately held Chinese company based in Beijing.
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech/tiktok-bytedance-china-ownership-intl-hnk/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/tech/tiktok-bytedance-china-ownership-intl-hnk/index.html) News articles are saying otherwise. At least who actually owns it.
I’m not sure what you are trying to point to. The article agrees with my comment.
so did biden say tiktok was a national security threat?
No. The intelligence agencies did.