How does an executive order just pause a law passed by Congress? Does Trump think he really has that kind of authority?
TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
571–580 of 1001 posts
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#572The straight up "shout out" in the pop-up, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems "unprofessional." Ironically, it probably got them huge bonus points so they know what they're doing.
They're Chinese. They know how to handle a shakedown by Party officials: it needs both bribes and flattery.
You could say that, but if it turns out to be working in the US...
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#573Congress looking towards an enforcement while the President trying to make a deal. It is going to be interesting how this plays out. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-2-...
Exactly. We could have had a discussion about whether a executive order can override house of representatives had such order be issued by Trump post inauguration yet overriding it prior to that should be the bigger deal here.
It's unfortunately not news that a Trump presidency doesn't respect the mores of the office.
The president can pardon people for breaking federal law and can stop the enforcement of federal law[1] so as president elect it makes sense that he can effectively neuter any federal law short of congress deciding he has gone to far and impeaching and removing him.
[1]i.e. federal agencies no longer prosecute personal marijuana use by executive order
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#574The straight up "shout out" in the pop-up, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems "unprofessional." Ironically, it probably got them huge bonus points so they know what they're doing.
They didn’t need to turn off in the first place. The Biden administration had already said they wouldn’t impose any fines. This was literally nothing but a political play intended to give Trump a boost.
Then why did they sign the law?
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#575The whole thing is starting to look like a circus.
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#576Despite my own feelings on the ban, this kind of royal court politics is the worst potential outcome. Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path. Not to mention the prosecutorial discretion may be creating massive liability that the new administration could use to extract favors from som…
>Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judicia…
>I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway.
Because this takeaway is wrong.
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#577The people pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue are ignoring that no one was requiring TikTok to change their content at all. The law was written to allow for 0 impact on users if the CCP-connected parent company simply divested. Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company. Bu…
Bytedance is privately held. With a 20% stake by founders and employees.
Divesting according to the bill terms would have them giving away portion of their most precious IP that is the fyp recommendation system. Any reasonable company would refuse to totally divest and create a competitor just because a government said so. Also TikTok makes money for advertizing to the entire world not just the US.
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#578It's odd to me that people seem to be mostly viewing this as a free speech/democracy issue. To me it's more like if newspapers were printed with toxic ink or something. The negatives of TikTok have nothing to do with the speech expressed by the "creators" on the platform, but rather with the overall harmful effects of the algorithmic firehose. It's true that this means all similar US-based things should be banned as…
> The negatives of ~Tiktok~short form videos have nothing to do with … It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil when meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are doing the same, just less successfully because they let advertisers and corporate interests buy priority in the algorithm which literally just boils down to “you likely like the same stuff as people who like the same stuff as you”.
You really can't tell the difference between Americans doing it and a foreign nation doing it?
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#579This seems to imply that the president elect can make unilateral guarantees contravening US law. That’s a surprising outcome.
[flagged]
Re: TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
#580The straight up "shout out" in the pop-up, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems "unprofessional." Ironically, it probably got them huge bonus points so they know what they're doing.
After the ban, Pornhub displayed a message asking people to contact their state representatives. I reckon it's a self-interest thing.