• DacoTaco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    I will be honest, i am fully against tiktok and everything it stands for. It should burn in hell.

    …However, the law the us passed to ban tiktok makes no sense whatsoever. At its core its as bad as china’s grasp on a lot of markets. I believe a more correct way is to ban the practices tik tok does and ban it from federal devices. However, such a law needs more effort and would also get us-based companies in trouble.
    But even then, its a way better solution to the problem

    • dumbass@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I believe a more correct way is to ban the practices tik tok does

      But then they have to ban their own data mining spyware social media platforms.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      At its core its as bad as china’s grasp on a lot of markets.

      The government should be allowed to regulate markets as much as necessary to protect citizens from the dangers of capitalism. Laissez-Faire doesn’t work.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      TBH if they’re arguing against the forced sale then they still don’t have any defence against the new laws that shipped alongside it making it illegal to collect and send data to adversarial nations, so that would effectively accomplish what you’re asking for.

      But also, this is very clear as day a Chinese Military Operation, so fuck em and fuck their rights in particular.

      Whether they win or lose their lawsuit I see it as a win for the US Citizens.

  • macniel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Yeah I don’t think ByteDance has a legal ground here.

    Also this coming from a Chinese company, is rich.

    • stembolts@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m 100% not an expert on this, I’m actually stupid, so know that before you read what I write.

      As much as I get what you are saying, the United States has continually expanded the rights of corporations to essentially be… people. So on that they seem to have some legal standing? But then we factor in national security interests, and those override everything.

      Without the national security interests I’d be curious which way this would go, but I don’t expect, “I deserve to spy on your citizens because I have free speech,” to fly…

      So in a way I agree with you and in other ways I disagree with you, in the end… I said nothing, but I did say I am stupid at the top, so really it’s your fault for continuing to read this far.

      At the very least it’s gonna be interesting. I doubt it will spark any introspection for politicians to think, “Hm, maybe we shouldn’t have given corporations more rights than people…” Nope. Poison the waters. Contaminate the soil. Torture the animals. Burn the sky. Cook all of humanity.

      But hey, line go up.

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        If Tiktok doesn’t deserve to spy on Americans, is it the counterpoint that US big tech does?

        • 0x0@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Only muricans get to spy on muricans! Now let’s do like the commies and nationalize TikTok so it too can be murican and then it’s ok for it to spy on muricans!

          • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The true american way is to nationalise tiktok then give it away to your donor friends like a massive handout.

        • stembolts@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Heck no, but conflating two arguments at the same time makes them both unsolvable. I just approach one topic at a time. I’m very much anti-gov-spying. It’s fourth amendment stuff.

          But I think the constitution is more of a talking point than something American politicians care about these days. They like to use it to say, “Do the thing I like! But wait, stop using it to stop me from stopping the things I don’t like!”

          It’s corruption all the way down.

          • gila@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            You put forward a couple of different points - I’m not conflating things, just hoping to skip past the constitutional one (which in my opinion is non-sequitur) to address the other. I might have boiled it down to a one-liner, but here’s some light further reading/viewing which may help to scratch below the surface of why this corruption as you put is probably happening: https://youtu.be/Fhgm5b8BR0k

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        As much as I get what you are saying, the United States has continually expanded the rights of corporations to essentially be… people. So on that they seem to have some legal standing?

        Afaik, the Citizens United case - which gave corporations First Amendment rights - was won based on the idea that the government can’t stop a corporation from publishing books. It’ll be interesting to see how this ruling goes when it’s not about books, but about an online media platform.

        That said, I agree that the national security aspect will definitely come into play here. As a non-American, I’m curious to see how it goes.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Will be interesting to read the arguments and hear what experts have to say.

    There is some precedence that corporations do have first amendment rights.

    A hypothetical argument from TikTok is they think they are allowed constitutional rights, in this case to publish whatever they want, in the act of doing a commercial activity and that the law which was passed to force a sale to a local owner is a violation of their right to speak freely.

    I suspect TikTok operates in the USA under an American registered entity that is wholly owned by a foreign entity. Whether that grants or removes any such constitutional rights seems unclear.

    Next, it doesn’t seem like the law intends to block TikTok’s “speech”, rather it specifically allows the executive branch to block this particular type of foreign entity from doing business on American soil on the grounds of security, enforced most likely by blocking it from doing business with the app stores. This also has precedence - a lot of it, in fact - when it comes to security. The US blocks all kinds of foreign businesses from trading with American businesses. Like arms dealers and drug dealers.

    So TikTok will need to defeat the idea that even as a foreign businesses they don’t need to be subject to the whims of the executive branches power to block foreign businesses AND that even congress doesn’t have the power to write a law that gives the executive branch this power (because, ya know, they just DID write that law).

    And then TikTok will need to win on the idea that somehow their rights have been suppressed.

    Seems like a long shot to me and the precedence that would be established by making it difficult for Congress to write laws that give the executive power to block foreign entities because it risks their unlikely right to speech in the US seems a bit whack.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I was under the assumption that the Constitution applies to all within the sovereign territory of the US, not just citizens. That’s why undocumented immigrants are still given trials for suspected crimes.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        I was under the assumption that the Constitution applies to all within the sovereign territory of the US, not just citizens.

        Corporate entities though? I’m not sure we should be onboard with giving companies constitutional rights (just the people), let alone foreign companies.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban,” TikTok wrote in the lawsuit, “and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide.”

    John Moolenaar, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, said: “Congress and the Executive Branch have concluded, based on both publicly available and classified information, that TikTok poses a grave risk to national security and the American people.

    “The statements of congressional committees and individual Members of Congress during the hasty, closed-door legislative process preceding the Act’s enactment confirm that there is at most speculation, not ‘evidence,’ as the First Amendment requires,” the lawsuit states.

    TikTok further claims the law violates the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and is an unconstitutional bill of attainder — or a legislative act declaring a party guilty of a crime, and imposing a punishment for it, without trial.

    If the law remains in place, the lawsuit stated, it would enable the federal government to invoke national security and force the publishers of other platforms, including news sites, to sell or be shut down.

    “TikTok has prevailed in its previous First Amendment challenges, but the bipartisan nature of this federal law may make judges more likely to defer to a Congressional determination that the company poses a national security risk,” Hans said.


    The original article contains 968 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    TikTok was a malicious entity from its inception, they can struggle all they like but they’re not going to Tom Sawyer us into thinking the US Legislator’s decisions were too unfair.

  • Jikiya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Apparently, the classification levels in the US are illegal! Snowden will rejoice, he can come home, as the first amendment allows free speech, even when it damages national security.

    I did not read the article, but the summary made me actually laugh out loud. Hell the supreme court has already said the government has the right to intern a whole class of US citizens based on national security. The SCOTUS rulings do seem rather crazy at times to me though, so perhaps this is a winning strategy for ByteDance.