this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
59 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58061 readers
31 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's why they're having to pass this law I guess then? Because they already have the authority to do the thing they're trying to make the law to get the authority to do?
And TikTok isn't owned by China. It's owned by ByteDance, a MultiNational Corp with Chinese ties. It's not operated out of China, Tiktok is operated out of Singapore and Los Angeles.
And what exactly is the security concern of people making funny cat videos? Nobody is saying the government has to put Tiktok on government computers. So what exactly is the exposure here that trumps the first amendment and prohibition on bills of attainder in the US?
To your first point, yes, exactly. Congress mostly has to pass bills to exercise their power. For example: they have the authority to decide finances. They pass bills to (barely) get that done.
You're not wrong but even if this was a standing authority being used in the same way as passing the budget, it would be illegal because it targets a single entity by design. The Constitution prohibits that which is why laws are written as behavior rules you have to violate and then the government proves you violated them in court. Just declaring a company or person persona non grata is something our founders specifically prohibited.
Passing laws is how they regulate international commerce. Or one way. Treaties are another. Executive orders are another. Actions of regulatory bodies within frameworks established by prior legislation is another.
Congress passing legislation to stop hostile foreign ownership of a US business that's doing harm is well within their authority.
A. Doing what harm? People just throw this around and there's been no evidence except, "lol it's a social media company".
B. It's not within their authority unless there's a specific national security problem. So what about TikTok is going to breach national security? Are they stealing military secrets? (They were already banned from government devices along with other social media apps so the answer is no. They're not.)
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government just pointing at us and declaring us criminals. Today it's TikTok tomorrow it's you.
A. It's malware that does an obscene amount of spying, even compared to other social media. Forcing the sale isn't good enough. It should have been outright banned.
B. That's incorrect. Their authority over foreign trade is unconditional and absolute. There are absolutely zero restrictions on what they can do to restrict foreign trade. Non-US companies have literally zero constitutional rights. They can ban all trade with any foreign person or business who has any commercial interaction with China if they wish. The Constitution places absolutely zero restrictions on their authority to restrict international trade.
No, the slippery slope does not exist, ignoring that that's a stupid fallacy for a reason. I am not an enemy state. I am not a US citizen. I have Constitutional rights. TikTok doesn't, and for very good reason.
You're thinking of laws in terms of obedience. Law is about agreed-upon structure (sometimes functional, often dysfunctional).
Enforcement is about obedience, and comes up when people don't go along with the agreed-upon structure. When the structure is made poorly, enforcement has harmful consequences.
Examples:
Law and enforcement are closely linked, but definitely distinct.
They have the authority to create structure (pass laws) regarding foreign powers operating within the States. So they pass laws (create structure) that state the agreed-upon structure, and enable that structure to be enforced.
Except we don't have that power. Not unless there's a national security threat. And they might make our children more woke isn't a national security threat.
American individuals and this company have a first amendment right. Furthermore this isn't a ban on all foreign owned companies. This is a ban on companies with ownership that have nebulous ties to certain countries. A list we can add to at any time. That is capricious and open to being abused. It's also unconstitutional under the no Bills of Attainder rule.