It's almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.
charonn0
joined 1 year ago
Well, no. The courts struck down Trump's Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.
What do you mean?
Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.
That's a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.
I've seen that too. But they're mistaken. "Censoring the internet" is not what this law does. That's hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don't misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.
They could use their advertising platform to manipulate US public opinion and elections. And, again, this isn't to say it's fine for domestic companies to do this. But that's no argument against this law. In fact, I daresay the "gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline" you identify is an example of this.
No, of course it's not fine.
But if it's not fine for domestic social media apps to do it, then it's even worse for a foreign adversary to do it. Right?
Which Tittok users has the US government censored?
“If lawmakers want to rein in the harms of social-media platforms, targeting just one under the guise of national security ignores an entire industry predicated on surveillance capitalism. Like all popular platforms — including those that Meta and Google own — TikTok collects far too much user data. But banning a single platform will not address the privacy problem that’s rotting the core of the entire tech industry.
If domestic social media is collecting dangerous amounts of personal info about Americans, then foreign social media under who are subject to the laws of adversarial nation-states should be seriously concerning.
The matter of domestic social media will have to be addressed by a completely different law because it cannot be addressed by a law similar to this new one. People who bring up domestic social media in discussions of this law are completely missing the point.
Can you explain why you feel that would even be necessary?
That's the opposite of what the court said.