It’s literally not in the entire text of the Bill hovering directly above this thread. You’re literally wrong.
If the bill identified tiktok and byte dance by name they would just rename the app and company to avoid the regulation.
The fact that this law identifies byte dance in the overly verbose and broad language typical of how laws are written does not change the intent.
It sounds like this is your first time reading the full text of a bill, and you are drawing uninformed conclusions.
lol yeah just change your name and you can’t be persecuted for your crimes. Great advice, armchair lawyer.
If the text of this law said that the app “Tiktok” and company “ByteDance” cannot operate in the US, it would be trivial create a new company called, “BitSamba” which operates the “Tuktuk” app, and this specific law would not apply to them.
That is why the bill uses the term “entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” Try reading at least one more bill, or any municipal code, then you might start to understand. This is how laws are written. Lawyers are very good at finding loopholes, which is why laws are specifically written defensively to avoid unintended loopholes.
The language of this bill will apply to tiktok. Tiktok is the most notable app that will be effected by it. Which is why everyone who knows what they’re talking about has been calling this the bill that bans tiktok because that is what it does.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
The version of the bill I saw just earlier today (linked from a CNN article a few days ago) mentioned TikTok and ByteDance by name:
Relevant section
> (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI -8 CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— > > (A) any of— > > (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; > > (ii) TikTok; > > (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or > > (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii);
This was under the definition of “adversary company.” So it was there at one point.
But that’s a big change, so I’m going to reread the bill to see if I need to revise my opinion on it. But the bill I read linked from CNN earlier today was bad in several ways.