631–640 of 741 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not necessarily. Only if the Supreme Court hears the case and agrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also worth noting that the Secretary of Commerce is not an elected position.
As if trusting congressmen to ban stuff is a better option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to move past the "TikTok = people dancing" stage of discussion. TikTok has expanded to be the dominant short form video platform for every interest, niche, and micro niche you can imagine that exists, and even ones you can't imagine. Please anyone reading this comment replace "TikTok = people dancing" with "TikTok = feed + discovery for short form video tailored to your specific interests no matter how niche"…
That's fair - but if that's the case, how is that actually different from YouTube, Instagram, or any number of other platforms? It appears in two ways: 1) TikTok is really good at what they do. 2) They are a Chinese-owned company. It certainly feels like if it weren't for #2, they would be praised for their innovation and held up as a great American success story. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be skepticism in…
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 underestimate the affect of Tiktok (and other social media) on the mental health of kids, not to mention how easily it can spread ideology. The relationship between those things and school shootings shouldn't need any explanation. I think your view on this is extremely narrow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The provider would be acting to abet the violation of this act. Whether or not they are Chinese doesn't matter in that subsection. If they were Chinese they wouldn't care about a US fine anyways. It's even possible that one would argue that a user using a VPN to access TikTok would be violating the bill.
The bill applies to only to financial transactions ("covered transactions" in the bill) and holdings ("covered holdings"), there's nothing in it at all directly regulating access to data or websites by individuals.
Here is the definition that the bill uses for "transaction":
> (17) TRANSACTION.—The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, >>>data transmission
As you can see here, mere data transmission is considered to be a transaction. I strongly suggest that you read the bill, in its entirety.
It's frustrating the discussion is not around data privacy in the US and potentially laws around privacy. If the issue with TikTok is primarily privacy could we have laws that strengthen privacy laws for companies within the US? This way a company can update its system to mitigate issues around privacy rather than a ban. This could impact US companies too, but that does not seem like a bad thing if they are forced to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The law must be both specific and punitive to be a bill of attainder. A law can nonpunitively regulate a “class of one” without being a Bill of Attainder. See, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). [0] So, it is not quite accurate that “any law targeting a specific person or company will be struck down”.
OTOH, a “TikTok ban” based on asserted prior misconduct would pretty surely be seen as punitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like legalizing abortion, the Dems haven't wanted to touch guns (ostensibly) because it radicalizes the other side.
It also doesn’t accomplish anything since any laws of any substance are guaranteed to be struck down by what has become a hopelessly partisan SCOTUS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many election deniers?
A large majority of Democrat voters fell for these baseless and dangerous election-denial conspiracy theories. Why do you ask? https://twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/1064259048902668289
You present no evidence relating to actual election denial.