TikTok Ban Bill Becomes Law, Gives TikTok 9 Months To Sell
TikTok Ban Bill Becomes Law, Gives TikTok 9 Months To Sell
President Biden signed a bill that states if TikTok doesn't cut ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance over the next nine months to a year, it will be banned in the U.S.
You're viewing a single thread.
What are the odds this stands up in court? It seems like an easy legal victory for TikTok.
Normally yeah but this was a called hit by the wealthy donor class. The same ones giving million dollar vacations to the Supreme Court judges.
On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it's found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.
On the grounds that they are not breaking it up because it has monopoly but because they don't like it can be used for Chinese propaganda. Which is limiting speech.
Also, they require it to be sold to non-chinese buyer, which is discriminatory.
See my reply to your sibling comment. This is wishful thinking. You could be right, but it's just as likely (I'd argue more likely) you're wrong.
Sorry if it sounded like I did not think TikTok is used for espionage. I am sure it is, just like Google, Facebook, etc. are used by the NSA (thanks Snowden for giving us proof of this). Its just funny to me that the US gov has to resort to banning it, because they spent years convincing people Tech Giants spying on them is ok. And now when they say don't use TikTok, everyone laughs at them.
I couldn't agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.
But the discussion isn't about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it's not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.
Well, I think the courts should strike it down because:
- It is content based speech regulation (Chinese influence on people), which deserves strictest scrutiny under the 1st amendment.
- It targets TikTok by name, which triggers equal protection issue. Congress is not allowed to pass a law that specifically bans Tom Holland from smoking. Laws need to be general. I don't see why this would be an exception.
Pretty sure it's because tiktok is literal Chinese Spyware designed to let them listen through any device that has tiktok installed.
Like I get people are getting pissy about losing a favored social media but let's not act like it's not actually a real potential issue.
Where are you getting that from? Seriously if I saw that from a reputable malware reporter I'd support this in an instant. If this is true please link your source.
As opposed to every other social media? If they want to protect privacy, Congress is allowed to pass privacy laws that apply to all companies. They are not allowed to single just one out.
What other social medias are based in countries that want to manipulate American citizens in an attempt to destabilize our democracy?
Meta is based in America and it seems that this is the country that wants to destabilize american democracy the most.
So its not an issue if american companies destabilize democracy? Just foreign ones?
Yeah I see the irony in my argument.
Idk I just don't see something like that in the hands of an external force that wants to see us fall as a good thing.
At least with American companies I can tell myself "well at least they live here so they're less likely to want to fuck it all up"
Like I said I see the irony but still have severe reservations.
You really think the interests of some country half a world away are more dangerous to you than that of companies trying to exploit you in your own country? The politicians trying to control you without pesky things as protests and elections? ;)
Idk about ironic, moreso irrational and/or unsound
What do you mean when you say that the "external force wants to see us fall"?
It would be generally unwise to assume that powerful Chinese people agree on that particular issue. Everyone has their own priorities. People who are in power seeking more power and money have their own ways of pursuing it, and some of those approaches work better if the country on the other side of the Pacific is relatively stable.
Certainly we agree that the spy agencies will continue to spy on whoever they can. I don't think banning TikTok will be a major roadblock for them, given the lack of consequences for companies that fail to secure their data.
The social media at home (ie Twitter, Facebook, reddit) have been manipulating all citizens into destabilizing democracy with all the right-wing propaganda and it is getting worse every day. I can go to Twitter any day of the week and see some slander in the "What's hot" section for any democratic/liberal leader while ass licking every conservative one depending on which country you are from. And the posts are mostly made by young Russian/etc bots. The problem is it seems to be working.
It's not just tik tok thats used for this shit. But the others are OK because they are 'MURICAN? It's a double standard. I'm not defending tik tok, but I personally think Twitter, etc need to be sold as well.
I agree it's a double standard.
I suppose for me personally it falls into the us us them ideology. I feel better with those companies at least having stake in the country they exist in.
Idk the more I think about it the more I realize how naive of a thought that is but I just don't like the idea of an enemy of the US having that power over US citizens.
Facebook was a key factor in the rise of trump and the January insurrection. I respect you're realising the lack of substance in this pov, I just want to say I don't see the appeal in an American company shovelling Russian propaganda over a Chinese one shovelling Chinese propaganda. Not like we're gonna do anything either way to remove the grip these companies have on people. Just push them to ones that feel more "like we are".
Twitter, etc isn't Canadian but it sure does has an opinion about who the Canadian Prime Minister should be.
I dont feel good about any of these social media platforms having a stake in this propaganda. Tik Tok, Twitter, reddit, etc...it's all the same to me.
Russia, etc will use any platform they can for this shit. It doesn't matter where the site is based. I don't think banning tik tok or forcing it to sell will change anything. Facebook will still be a cesspool of right ring propaganda.
They're based in Singapore and Los Angeles.
Yeah! I only want American spyware! USA! USA! USA!
Lmao. Then bring an anti-trust case? That power is specifically in reference to that and requires the government to prove it's case in court. Not just make a declaration.
You're missing my point.
In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that's the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it's the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.
That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I'm wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn't apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I'm not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there's OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).
To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I'm saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it's not an obvious slam dunk.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
And the Anti-Trust laws were written that way because that's the Due Process the Constitution demands. The executive cannot just declare something punitive. That has been the standard for over 200 years.
Also, if there aren't rights for foreigners in the US then there aren't rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
In what way does that invalidate it as an example?
The executive cannot just declare something punitive.
CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.
Also, if there aren't rights for foreigners in the US then there aren't rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Bytedance isn't inside your borders and the constitution doesn't protect extra-nationals. There's a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.
You wouldn't be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn't critical infrastructure.
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
So again. Not personal use. Also, refunding an investment is entirely different than shutting down a business.
And LMAO. If Bytedance wasn't inside the borders then this wouldn't matter. Saying they aren't inside the borders is possibly the most hilarious bad faith thing I've seen in this entire debacle.
You wouldn't be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn't critical infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:
CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user's location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.
Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn't count as "critical infrastructure"?
(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
So again. Not personal use.
LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.
Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.
But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.
The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.
Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It's incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don't trade on any US stock exchanges).
TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).
The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn't occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it's that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.
Oh no the government said it was for national security! That's it folks pack it up. As everyone knows nobody has any rights once the President mentions the words National and Security together!
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn't apply?
Stop justifying Unconstitutional shit just because someone said the scary words.
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn't apply?
Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn't realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!
The question is indeed constitutionality. But I disagree with you about any major effect on the FTC. Details matter, and this looks to be a situation where the details don't look good for the government. A court could easily find that this was handled improperly, and leave the rest of the framework as it is.
Why would a court be able to "easily find this was handled improperly"?