I just wish they wouldn't stop with tik tok. Facebook, twitter and all the rest present the same danger.
...Explicit CCP control?
I haven't heard the Zuk as a CCP asset conspiracy theory yet. only a matter of time.
Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
61–70 of 146 posts
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#62If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. Wha…
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…
While this is a fair take, it's not what the law has in mind.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#63TikTok is not being banned. TikTok is being required to sell to a non-Chinese stakeholder in order to mitigate the national security threat of it being indirectly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. These are not the same thing, and it's depressing how vulnerable people seem to be to propaganda anymore. No one can even read a legal brief or a law.
Yeah, and what if they don't comply?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#64The authors Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey seem to think that the rule of law and advocating for consistent ruling on constitutionality will have an effect. If I’ve learned anything about how the Supreme Court works, it’s that this is a political calculation, not a legal one. The outcomes are decided first, and then jurisprudence is employed to substantiate them — not the other way around.
All courts are, sadly, political because judges are human.
It highly depends on the design of the judicial system. As individual people obviously everyone has political opinions, but you can shield the judicial system from being politized. Systems like in Israel where judges or judicial committees have a major say in appointment of judges removes a lot of politics from the equation.
That's how the Prussian/German bureaucracy was designed too. Lifetime civil service and merit based selection basically means the bureaucracy manages itself removed from the political process. The US system is extremely personalized with elections and appointments so it's uniquely nepotistic in a lot of ways.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#65The word around socials seems to be that users are just moving to Rednote, another Chinese social media app - doesn't that just defeat the purpose of this and end up with a cat and mouse game?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#66TikTok is not being banned. TikTok is being required to sell to a non-Chinese stakeholder in order to mitigate the national security threat of it being indirectly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. These are not the same thing, and it's depressing how vulnerable people seem to be to propaganda anymore. No one can even read a legal brief or a law.
Absolutely, all of these articles are appeals to emotion. I imagine that works especially for the folks who have an addiction to the propaganda dispenser.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#67First, let me preface that I despise TikTok and I think it is mostly garbage content-wise, however this proposal is simply un-American. Concerns about data privacy and foreign influence are legit, but banning an entire communication platform used by 170 million Americans based on hypothetical threats goes against core First Amendment principles especially considering the government's inability to provide concrete evi…
It's not a ban, it's a forced divestment from Chinese ownership. The real question is why Bytedance isn't willing to take fair market value for Tiktok instead of just losing everything, since that makes no sense if this was just "business" and there weren't ulterior motives involved.
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#68Banning citizens from using the app seems unconstitutional, but is preventing the the company ByteDance to operate inside the US unconstitutional? Those two seems like two completely different questions even if the outcome is similar.
From a EU perspective, regulating what companies do is not in conflict at all with human rights. The privilege to operate a company, provide advertisement, sell products and services, to use the local economy, all that is regulated. It should also be mentioned that companies generally tend to receive some benefits that individual persons do not, especially when it comes to taxes, risk taking, and debt. Companies can own and operate things which private person can't. The distinction between the rights, responsibilities and privileges that a private person has compared to a commercial company are fairly major.
Why is the ACLU talking like TikTok is a US citizen which free speech rights are being infringed?
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give a recent (last 20 years) example of a Supreme Court political not legal decision? FWIW, I think the Supreme Court will not uphold the ban. But TBH I don't know the details of the 'ban'.
The decision to ban Colorado from making its own decisions for its own election with regard to what "engaged in insurrection" means and therefore disqualifies someone from their own state's ballots. Purely political. The law says clearly that states run their own elections and it says clearly that insurrection is disqualifying. Would've been politically inconvenient though (for either side of the spectrum, and especi…
OK I'll have a read of "23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024)"
Re: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Must Step In
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but I think that's as unconstitutional as a ban, by the same logic. But I'm not a lawyer.
How so? Generally speaking, foreign entities do not have the same constitutional guarantees as domestic with regard to laws concerning national security. Mind you, if this was a domestically owned platform, they would have a very strong case.
Even for domestic companies, we've used consent decrees to force them to divest businesses (Standard Oil, AT&T, etc.) after they've been held in violation of antitrust law.