11–20 of 66 posts
Literally what else could he possibly say in this situation?
They should sell it or spin it off or whatever and make statements commensurate with that.
Also, how is China an adversary? I thought the USA and China were trading partners.
Does he seriously think the US SCOTUS is going to override the will of 79 senators, for the sake of a company with documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party? If I was a senator, I would consider that almost treasonous. Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls. At that rate, the CCP should be able to buy beachfront property in California, ship mi…
You would think the free market would value national security more.
Does he seriously think the US SCOTUS is going to override the will of 79 senators, for the sake of a company with documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party? If I was a senator, I would consider that almost treasonous. Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls. At that rate, the CCP should be able to buy beachfront property in California, ship mi…
That's literally SCOTUS's job though, particularly as it relates to the US Constitution. The whole point is that unconstitutional laws "in theory" should be struck down.
Does he seriously think the US SCOTUS is going to override the will of 79 senators, for the sake of a company with documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party? If I was a senator, I would consider that almost treasonous. Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls. At that rate, the CCP should be able to buy beachfront property in California, ship mi…
The Constitution - in this case, probably the First Amendment - very clearly limits what the Senate can do. The entire three-branch system is built on checks and balances of this nature.
> Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls.
Can we vote to put redheads in extermination camps?
Does he seriously think the US SCOTUS is going to override the will of 79 senators, for the sake of a company with documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party? If I was a senator, I would consider that almost treasonous. Frankly, even if you disagree with the vote, a democracy can and should be able to make such judgement calls. At that rate, the CCP should be able to buy beachfront property in California, ship mi…
Isn't overriding the will of senators literally the point of the supreme court?
It's hard for me to imagine TikTok retaining even 20% of the US market share after an app store ban. But that 20% would still be a huge cultural victory for ByteDance, would be an impressive resistance.
The US would really have to turn into a monster, would have to deputize a huge amount of internet services into becoming policemen to go further, and that's a horrible thing that I don't want to see. But also, I struggle to see that deputization down without a huge stink that makes congress look like foolish jerks.
And it'll never work. No matter how many ISP types we conscript, there's just way too many VPNs and other capabilities out there to workaround a technical ban. Squeezing hard will sort of illuminate the futility of the act.
And sort of that's my hope, that the ban becomes a lesson in futility, that sort of shows ByteDance's posture here is right (albeit at a considerable loss in market position). I want the internet to have a win here, I want democratized individual choices to triumph over tight centralized control, I want nations to not have the means. Other nations attempt elaborate control and I don't want the example of control to be proven viable here in the US. There's dark dark roads Congress & the government could go down to try to enforce this ban, but I'm kind of hoping they fail fast and fail hard.
(Also reserving the right to change my mind later. I struggle to see right now how picking on one (and only one) big foreign service is justified.)
Can anyone say what user data ByteDance might share with the Chinese government? Also, how is China an adversary? I thought the USA and China were trading partners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't overriding the will of senators literally the point of the supreme court?
No. The Supreme Court exists primarily to interpret the law, reconcile laws with other laws, and address vague language or other inconsistencies. Overriding the will of senators, immediately after a bill’s passing, is very rare and threatens their perceived legitimacy. Senators can always impeach SCOTUS judges, and to do such an act begs for it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional...