Comment on US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues

Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It’s called a “Bill of Attainder”.

  The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Cool, let’s ban Temu then. Nothing of value will be lost.

    source

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone

      Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.

      …And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.

      As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.

      source

      • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        There’s no been proof that Tik Tok sends all the data to China or that China manipulates the algorithm. In fact, to appease the US before, they agreed to let Oracle and a purely US subsidiary look at all their code and data and content moderation. Oracle would spot check the data flows and where it goes. Tik Tok would report to Committee on Foreign Investment in the US on everything, even hiring practices. And a 2021 study found Tik Tok didn’t really collect data beyond the norm of other players in the industry, or beyond what it said it did in it’s policy.

        Most of the claims by a Tik Tok whistleblower that alleged otherwise seem to be from one guy mad at being fired who’s made wild claims, like Merrick Garland instigated his firing, and he only worked there for 6 months.

        All this scaring is literally just because politicians are scared that people in Gaza can use it to report what’s happening to themselves during the genocide, without the blatant censorship of American companies on the issue. [Even Romney admitted that’s the reason.] (www.commondreams.org/news/mitt-romney-tiktok) I don’t actually use Tik Tok and I think it’s algorithms are bad for our ADHD addled brains, but I would also apply that to YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. They should all be regulated, not banned. Hell, we actually could use more foreign companies that aren’t vulnerable to US censorship, not the opposite. This is especially important since reporters aren’t being let in Gaza and the ones who are are killed. And we’ll probably lose it once they finish their restructuring in Project Texas, although sounds like they’ll be banned before they do.

        source
    • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I said Facebook because we know they’re doing it and you’d still have to actually prove that case.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn’t be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).

        source
  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:

    1. The law inflicts punishment.
    2. The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
    3. Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.

    And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.

    source

    • Buttons@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      You mean the CCP is not an “individual or group”?

      source

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        #3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read.

        The parent company don’t have judicial protections. They’re based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn’t being punished, they’re explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3

      The bill doesn’t target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.

      source

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose’s friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.

        The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Not environmentally…

  source
• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I thought we like disruption.

  source