TikTok Ban Bill Becomes Law, Gives TikTok 9 Months To Sell
TikTok Ban Bill Becomes Law, Gives TikTok 9 Months To Sell
www.entrepreneur.com
TikTok Ban Bill Becomes Law, Gives TikTok 9 Months To Sell | Entrepreneur
418 comments
-
And the fact that a foreign adversary obtained this information was very bad, agreed? Clearly, it makes sense to take steps to keep that kind of information out of adversarial hands.
-
Yes, my point was this only affects one of them. It doesn't fix the root of the problem, because that's not the bill's target.
In fact, if TikTok remains, and does get banned, it just makes it so they no longer have to listen to the US government for anything.
-
The law affects social media apps based in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. These four countries are already restricted from participating in sensitive areas of the US economy, with forced sale being an option. The only really novel part of this law is applying such restrictions to software.
-
You're missing my point. The adversaries have many more avenues than just TikTok (like breaching the domestic companies that collect the data). The law is too specific and therefore does not actually protect us in any real way, at least not on a personal level.
-
It's not too specific, it's narrowly tailored. Which is one of the things it needs to be in order to survive a 1st amendment challenge.
-
Does it stop my data from getting to the CCP? Nope, so I would say it's too specific. The problem is not TikTok exclusively, the problem is that the data is collected and sold in the first place. This doesn't stop that.
Also, it leaves a bad taste when you say it was crafted to narrowly skirt the 1st amendment. That's not a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're trying to imply that it is.
-
It's like people legit don't want to understand your point.
It's kinda insane seeing people/the Overton window turn progressively more and more authoritarian
-
No, but it does prohibit companies in those four sanctioned countries from operating social media apps in the US. The fact that it's not a perfect protection is no good reason not to do it. The fact that it was written with an eye towards the first amendment is not a valid criticism.
-
-
-
-
-
-
418 comments