58
submitted 1 year ago by shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

They mention tiktok a lot but the text of the bill reads "any foreign adversary controlled applications." So I think it is more broad.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really. They word it like that because laws need to look broad, but the purpose is to target TikTok.

One thing I'm absolutely worried about is the definition of "adversary" is too broad, and it could potentially be broadened to include any foreign country that doesn't do whatever the US wants.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The "purpose" is to target TikTok, sure. But that doesn't really matter as it could be used to enforce laws against any other company / country doing something similar. Laws are often used beyond the original intent.

Though if it's not written broadly enough I believe it could be ruled unconstitutional.

Yeah, I'm not Constitutional lawyer, but that's my impression as well. I'm guessing they'll just adjust the definition of "adversary" to match their political aims though.

this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
58 points (89.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8285 readers
464 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS