1392
TikTok Rule
(fedia.io)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
1392 points (100.0% liked)
196
16509 readers
2470 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Usa invented the Online psyops/spy game with facebook/google. Now they pissed china beat them at there own game.
Wanting to ban a app/service that basically gives your biggest economic and political enemy direct conact to the local networks/brain of your population is understandable.
I mean those are the reasons why china banned Facebook/Google years ago.
Reality is more complicated tho, cause unless the usa is willing to build a chinese firewall for themself, it will be impossible to keep people from using TikTok via VPN.
If the usa would actually care for its citizen privacy they could just outlaw closed source software.
A majority of people probably won't bother and just move on. A decent chunk, 30/40% maybe but that still leaves a 70/60% reduction and it's influence permanently neutered so the gov will still see it as a win
Honestly, I feel like in the next decade we're going to see a whole lot of great firewalls. Every other country wants to control everyone and get in people's heads. We're either going to invent some way to regulate this desire (unlikely, if you ask me) or end up with a lot of spying and/or fractured network ๐
It's my understanding this is designed for TikTok to be sold off, not to ban it.
Anyway, yeah I agree with everything else. Anyone "defending China" here is ignoring the Chinese firewall, but also everyone "defending the US" must also agree the Chinese firewall has a useful purpose. The fact is this is just about control and/or greed. It's not any more or less evil than all the other shit the governments do to control people. It's not going to hurt anyone here, but it's also probably not going to help them either.
I won't touch TikTok anyway, so I really don't care. It just seems like everyone is misunderstanding what's going on and hypocritical with their stance, whichever position they hold.
Which is still an unprecedented power we've consistently called out other countries for doing. Also, targeting a single entity is unconstitutional, it's a Bill of Attainder.
No. It isn't charging them with a crime, which is what a bill of attainder is for. It's only saying they won't be allowed to do business in the US. I'm fairly confident it is absolutely legal and constitutional, and also it isn't unprecedented either. For example, see Huawei.
You can argue ethics all you want. It won't stop anything, nor does it really matter in this situation. Ethics aren't in play, because this is about power. Regardless, it's equally ethical for the US to do this as what China does to prevent western companies operating in China.
It imposes a punishment without trial. That's a Bill of Attainder.
And being as ethical as China isn't a line I want to stand on.
You're missing a very key part of it, I assume on purpose. It imposes a punishment for a crime. No one is accusing them of a crime. I don't know where you got this idea from, but they're wrong. They may have said it very confidently, but it's incorrect. Doing this to "protect national security" is perfectly fine. The intent is not to punish them.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder
Oh, that makes it okay then.
We're going to pass a law that punishes a someone or a group, but it's okay if we just don't say, "they're guilty of X."
Somehow I don't think the courts are going to share your interpretation. And in your own article they do not. Nowhere in the test does it state the bill must name a crime.
The last bullet for determining if it's punishment: "Was that a congressional intent for the statute to further punitive goals."
It fails that test. It isn't any sort if punishment. It's for "national security".
Oh? Could have fooled me. The anti-China statements from politicians are admissable.
If the government is allowed to hand waive anything under "national security" then it's a short trip to the work camp for us all.
The correct law is staring them in the face.
That achieves the mission and holds the entire industry accountable without unconstitutionally targeting a single company.