The Supreme Court is bought and paid for by the group that wants to ban likely take over. So, regardless of what your thoughts on TikTok are, it's mostly all irrelevant.
Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
121–130 of 146 posts
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#122Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Change it to $100 or $1M or $1B, it doesn't matter. If you don't want to sell your house you have the right to not sell it.
Eminent domain is a thing. You can absolutely be forced to sell your house to make way for a public project. Hell, after the Kelo decision, you can even be forced to sell it for private benefit.
So going by your own example, if the government tells you "sell your house or we are going to seize it via eminent domain", are you not allowed to say "the government is using eminent domain to take my house from me"? Now replace "eminent domain" with "ban" and "house" with "TikTok".
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eminent domain is a thing. You can absolutely be forced to sell your house to make way for a public project. Hell, after the Kelo decision, you can even be forced to sell it for private benefit.
So going by your own example, if the government tells you "sell your house or we are going to seize it via eminent domain", are you not allowed to say "the government is using eminent domain to take my house from me"? Now replace "eminent domain" with "ban" and "house" with "TikTok".
No, because they're not banning TikTok, nor is eminent domain anything like arson.
The only similarity between condemnation and arson is that you don't get to live in the house anymore. If your house is condemned and you get fair market value for it, you can buy a new house with it. If your house is burned to the ground, you have nothing.
Similarly, if ByteDance sells TikTok to someone else, TikTok can be to its users exactly how it has been all along. They've simply chosen not to, at least not yet. And it's in their best interest to characterize it as a ban to win hearts and minds, even though that characterization of "banning" is something they're choosing to do to themselves by shutting it down instead of selling.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think forced rushed sales don't depress market prices?
ByteDance has been aware that this was likely to happen for years , and legislation was signed in April 2024, giving them over six months to sell. There's nothing rushed about this at all. ByteDance is playing chicken, and they're looking ever likelier to lose this game.
The US is currently 1/5th of their revenue I believe. It’s very US centric to call not being extorted out of your company by a foreign power a loss. I do believe the legislation passed is legally binding and will hold up to scrutiny by this Supreme Court. I am a person who consumes fun videos on TikTok while also recognizing the potential for a adversary to abuse. I found TikTok to be a way more joyful place than the meta properties too. I hope Meta doesn’t get to reap the benefits of this ban and I’ve seen a lot of genz who seem to be extremely anti zuck. It’s an unfortunate outcome, but I don’t see a strong 1A argument on this.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta & co are required by US law to do the same for people in the rest of the world. Didn't see a huge US outcry about that, in fact I saw a lot of hate for things like GDPR
The hate for the GDPR I read of is actually about the "allow cookie" popups that aren't needed at all are are just a form of protest by those individual sites because they are storing and selling personal information including IP addresses. If you aren't engaged in those practices then there's no need for any GDPR annoyances for users. I may misunderstand, I'm in America currently.
The allow cookies was already there because of the cookie banner law, unfortunately GDPR did not stop the cookie law, but GDPR does say you need a way to agree to tracking etc. and to be informed when it happens so it sort of seems reasonable the allow cookies popups would be used for this.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it does offer an avenue for inacting some form of ban. And not so sure it's all that morally low. Because what China's ban of US social media might say is that China recognizes social-media's power to influence the populace (think Russia's use of Twitter and FB in the 2016 election). Yeah, am actually in favor of some form of restrictions, because we as a country need to realize that social media is a tool that…
If social media is so bad let's regulate ALL of it, US firms included. Personally I fear US-controlled social media more than Sino-controlled ones. It's not like the CCP can come and arrest me here in the US, or really use my data against me in any way. Both have plenty of reasons to throw propaganda at me, or censor certain viewpoints. At least when it's a foreign country I have a chance of seeing through it, compar…
I understand the sentiment, and in the short term I agree with you (what can a foreign-controlled tik-tok going to do to us?). But think giving influence to our online behavior directly over to an adversarial foreign-power doesn't sound like a good idea. To me, it reminds me of WWII and the codebreakers in England who broke the German codes. They didn't use it to decode messages all time, because they didn't want to alert the Germans, only during significant events. Yeah, control over a major social media outlet could be a tool to use selectively during important events to influence the masses.
Not in a good idea in my opinion, but am no expert in this.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
If social media is so bad let's regulate ALL of it, US firms included. Personally I fear US-controlled social media more than Sino-controlled ones. It's not like the CCP can come and arrest me here in the US, or really use my data against me in any way. Both have plenty of reasons to throw propaganda at me, or censor certain viewpoints. At least when it's a foreign country I have a chance of seeing through it, compar…
I understand the sentiment, and in the short term I agree with you (what can a foreign-controlled tik-tok going to do to us?). But think giving influence to our online behavior directly over to an adversarial foreign-power doesn't sound like a good idea. To me, it reminds me of WWII and the codebreakers in England who broke the German codes. They didn't use it to decode messages all time, because they didn't want to…
That's fair. I do think China would probably just omit viewpoints rather than outright lie and it'd be hard to detect.
I guess I don't personally fear China as much as Congress does, I view them more as a rival than an enemy. I wish them well, and hope they make more cool apps and games for me to enjoy. And they'd probably love nothing more than for us to overthrow our oligarchs (just like we want to see the fall of the CCP), and that's not necessarily against my interests as a regular Joe.
I can understand why Congress is concerned, I just wish they'd try to address the root of the problem (enforce common safety and transparency standards for all social media) rather than the targeted approach they've taken.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#129Social media platforms hosted in the USA are voluntarily bending to the President's will. Social media platforms hosted outside the USA are going to be banned, because national security. People may not realize or acknowledge it, but we are in the very last days of "free speech" on the internet.
Unfortunately people are cheering it on :/
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to…
China is classified as a foreign adversary, so this goes beyond trade policy. Foreign adversaries show a pattern of conduct that threaten national security. People are not comfortable with foreign adversaries having a direct line to our youth's attention and having their finger on the dial.
i agree wholeheartedly. i provided this as an additional set of reasoning for people who are either America-haters or doves.