Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

congress.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 741 posts

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#431

Post by freeopinion »

Wouldn't it be refreshing if Congress could identify exactly what is scary about Chinese-connected social media and legislate against it in such a way that it would prevent every other scary monster from doing exactly what they wish to deny China?

It seems silly to legislate "thou shalt not do really scare thing #1 if name == TikTok" or "thou shalt not allow any third party to have really scare access if name == China". Just leave out the if clauses.

Don't target China or Russia or Iran or North Korea. Don't exempt Virginia or Maryland or any three letter acronym. If it is dangerous for the Chinese government to do it, it is dangerous for the U.S. government to do it and for the sales department of Amazon to do it.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#432

Post by remarkEon »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #350
remarkEon wrote: post #249

The media coverage of this (and the title of this submission, which I argue should be changed to the actual title of the bill) are really confusing everyone - both in here and elsewhere. There is a Senate bill[1] called "S.85 - No TikTok on United States Devices Act", which is very short and seems to only do one thing, and that's ban TikTok. This bill is in committee. There is another Senate bill[2], called "S.686 -…

I think the RESTRICT Act is the one being held up as the ban bill because it's bipartisan and considered most likely to 1) actually move to a vote because of that and 2) creates a legal framework for a ban rather than just implementing one which is likely to be unwound by a court and found unconstitutional without it

Why is S.85 likely to be unwound by the courts? It's with a different committee and cites a different act for its legal authority.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#434

Post by ActorNightly »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #326
ActorNightly wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question,did the Patriot act ever get misused intentionally in a grossly negligent way?

Yes. Between 2003 and 2006, nearly two hundred thousand National Security Letters were issued to obtain personal/financial history of US citizens without any judicial review. This data was only used for one terrorism related conviction, and it is generally considered that this conviction would have happend even without the act.

I mean I'm not for the act, but it sounds like the letters were used within the context of the law.

I'm just trying to gauge the difference between what people were saying Patriot act will allow, versus what actually happened.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#436

Post by lazyeye »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #418
lazyeye wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculous argument. A lot of people choose meth.

It sounds like your argument is, The government can be a force for good for people who aren't capable of making rational decisions.

Exactly and young people lack the life experience to comprehend the long-term risks associated with surrendering their private data to the CCP or being exposed to sophisticated disinformation campaigns over time. So it is incumbent on the govt to protect their long-term interests.

And to also ensure that trade relationships are fair and equitable (which it currently isnt).

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#437

Post by aikinai »

withinboredom wrote: post #164

Maybe someone will scroll all the way down to this comment. Probably not. For half a decade, I have lived outside of the US, and I've watched as it has fallen to shit in slow motion. I make a decent chunk of income in USD and this terrifies me... but this. This move saddens me. There are only so many hours that congress has to make real decisions ... and this, this is what they spent their time on? Talking about how…

And now this low brow distraction is on top (at least for me), even above the next comment which has very insightful information about the content of the bill.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#438

Post by prmoustache »

sergiotapia wrote: post #335
withinboredom wrote: post #164

Maybe someone will scroll all the way down to this comment. Probably not. For half a decade, I have lived outside of the US, and I've watched as it has fallen to shit in slow motion. I make a decent chunk of income in USD and this terrifies me... but this. This move saddens me. There are only so many hours that congress has to make real decisions ... and this, this is what they spent their time on? Talking about how…

You don't see anything wrong with all that data being slurped up by the communist regime of China? That's the main reason behind all of this. Nothing to do with "kids attention". It would be wrong for the US to do nothing.

Chinese regime is in no way communist. It is only in the name and has been so for years.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#439

Post by ABeeSea »

setgree wrote: post #429
jedberg wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's unconstitutional to make a law that targets a specific person or company. They have to be subtle and use generic terms to describe who is affected by the law in a way where TikTok ends up being the only company that qualifies right now. It's also good practice because it prevents TikTok from just making a new company that is exactly the same. Edit: changed illegal to unconstitutional because someone belo…

It is not illegal for Congress to target specific products. I do not know where you got that impression. Laws can be deemed unconstitutional upon review, but Congress literally defines what is legal or not.

That’s just being pedantic. The constitution explicitly bans bills of attainder so any law targeting a specific person or company will be struck down.

Re: Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

#440

Post by pc_edwin »

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor a legal/constitutional expert.

TLDR: The bill doesn't ban TikTok, it gives the executive branch the power to ban companies like Tiktok. IMO this is an entirely reasonable measure.

As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I am generally opposed to the trend of the executive branch gaining arbitrary legislative authority but this bill appears entirely reasonable to me despite some concerns of vagueness.

It gives the Secretary of commerce the responsibility of consulting with agencies to determine if software companies from "foreign adversaries" pose a national security threat. If the secretary seems it does then it gives the president the authority to ban the company.

Post reply on HN