121–130 of 585 posts
Slightly off topic - I'm not sure I've heard the gov stating it plainly in the recent years: "the People's Republic of China is an adversary of the United States" (from the bill). Did I just miss it / glance over, or is this out of character for officially released gov documents?
My only consolation in this shitstorm is that it's been expanded to include "all social media applications that collect and provide users' personal information or data to a foreign adversary, or a person or entity located within a country designated as a foreign adversary." So, yeah. I guess it's time to shut 'em all down. Now we just wait for the "I didn't mean American companies" retraction.
Data misuse is real concern. But TikTok is not the main problem, it's industry-wide. A good Data Protection legislation that applies to all, and is applied to TikTok if they warrant it (and also to FaceBook, etc) and the next social media that starts up next year, would be much better. EU GDPR style.
If none of these companies can live with that, then so be it, shut 'em all down.
My only consolation in this shitstorm is that it's been expanded to include "all social media applications that collect and provide users' personal information or data to a foreign adversary, or a person or entity located within a country designated as a foreign adversary." So, yeah. I guess it's time to shut 'em all down. Now we just wait for the "I didn't mean American companies" retraction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like There are two issues with TikTok: privacy and national security. The latter is what this is about. (Related to e.g. our foreign media ownership rules.) The federal legislation is trying to create an extensible system for forcing divestiture based on requirements you describe. This is more ha…
There's also the third issue, which is much more problematic to fix with regulation: short-form video is absolutely killing youth attention span. I know students who will ask another student a question, and then lose focus and zone out within literally 3 seconds and not hear the answer. This was not nearly as prevalent a decade ago.
We age gate tobacco, alcohol and even pornography. Is it impermeable? Of course not. Does it prevent Adam Mosseri from contemplating PornHub for Kids [1]? Yes.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/adam-mo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I heard, there was a "per use" fine for usage as well. Honestly, I haven't looked at this farce of a bill since it was first introduced. EDIT: S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana: (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or (b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.
Does a state even have a right to do something like this? Somehow, I feel like if California tried to ban Fox News - it would not fly. This doesn't seem that different, though I personally find it amusing that it's coming from a conservative state. I do agree TikTok is toxic trash - but I'd say the same about Fox News - and it just doesn't seem like something a state has the ability to ban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I heard, there was a "per use" fine for usage as well. Honestly, I haven't looked at this farce of a bill since it was first introduced. EDIT: S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana: (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or (b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.
The article claims "...will not impose any penalties on individuals using the app". A commenter elsewhere in this thread links to the law itself, which could presumably disambiguate, though I've not read it.
Tomorrow's story: "Residents of Montana discover VPNs and how to use them!" Between Utah and Montana the awareness and use of VPNs is rising among the non-security-conscious, and this is a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries. US companies are a different problem with different solutions.
Do states ? (edit - oops, see correction below) There's nothing in this law that would unban TikTok if its ownership were transferred to a US corporation.
> Section 4. Contingent voidness. [This act] is void if tiktok is acquired by or sold to a company that is not incorporated in any other country designated as a foreign adversary in 15 C.F.R. 7.4 at the time tiktok is sold or acquired.
If TikTok is transferred to a company not owned by China the act goes away.
So they could just do that, then reacquire the company and this law vanishes in a puff of logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I heard, there was a "per use" fine for usage as well. Honestly, I haven't looked at this farce of a bill since it was first introduced. EDIT: S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana: (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or (b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.
Does a state even have a right to do something like this? Somehow, I feel like if California tried to ban Fox News - it would not fly. This doesn't seem that different, though I personally find it amusing that it's coming from a conservative state. I do agree TikTok is toxic trash - but I'd say the same about Fox News - and it just doesn't seem like something a state has the ability to ban.
Slightly off topic - I'm not sure I've heard the gov stating it plainly in the recent years: "the People's Republic of China is an adversary of the United States" (from the bill). Did I just miss it / glance over, or is this out of character for officially released gov documents?
I wonder how many Chinese-manufactured goods the state of Montana bought yesterday while issuing this statement.